Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

MR. SPEAKER in the Chair

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Point of Ayr Liquefaction Plant

Mr. Barron: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in the development of the liquefaction pilot plant at Point of Ayr.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): The National Coal Board has now begun construction at Point of Ayr. Commissioning is expected in late 1987.

Mr. Barron: I welcome the Minister's statement about the start of construction. However, is it not true that the public funds that were committed to this project by the last Labour Government have been severely reduced by this Government and that the size of the plant has also been severely reduced? One of our major competitors, Japan, is spending £127 million on non-nuclear reasearch, 56 per cent. of which is being spent on research into coal gasification and liquefaction. Has not the Government's intervention since 1979 impeded the introduction of coal liquefaction and of other uses for coal?

Mr. Hunt: No. This is an important project for the National Coal Board. Its process, which appears to be one of the strongest technically, produces a premium synthetic crude which is easily refined into aviation and other transport fuels. Under this Government, public sector commitment to research and development into coal utilisation is in excess of £100 million.

Mr. Raffan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the beginning of the construction of this pilot plant is widely welcomed in my constituency as evidence of the Government's commitment to coal to oil liquefaction? Is that not a tribute to the NCB's foresight and determination to ensure that Britain has a share of the potential market opportunity when there is an increase in the price of oil relative to that of coal?

Mr. Hunt: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the board has advised me that the project is on schedule and within budget. Civil engineering work began on 6 January and completion is expected in August.

Mr. Eadie: Is it not ironic that the Minister should have the audacity to come to the Dispatch Box and praise the project as one of the best in the country, when that same project was on the table in 1979 and it has taken the

Government nine years to make up their mind? In essence, we have a laboratory scheme at Point of Ayr. Nevertheless, the Opposition endorse the conversion of the hon. Gentleman and his Government. We also endorse the NCB's enthusiasm, but it has taken nine years for that to happen.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman seeks to make political points out of a project where there is no room for such petty points. The coal industry has had its best deal since nationalisation from this Government.

NCB (North Yorkshire Area)

Mr. O'Brien: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest productivity figures for the north Yorkshire area of the National Coal Board; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): Deep mined revenue productivity in the north Yorkshire area of the National Coal Board averaged 3·36 tonnes per man shift in the week ending 19 April. The future prosperity of the coal industry depends upon continuing efforts to reduce production costs.

Mr. O'Brien: In view of the Secretary of State's answer and of the sterling work done by the men in the north Yorkshire coalfield in particular, but throughout the coalfields in general, will he have a word with the stone-hearted Mr. MacGregor of British Coal and ask him immediately to settle the mineworker's pay increase and to leave the pension scheme as a separate issue? A settlement is due to the men. I ask the Secretary of State to intervene and ensure that they receive their just reward.

Mr. Walker: I have no intention of intervening. This is a matter for negotiation between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Michael Morris: Do not those figures demonstrate that when men are allowed to respond to good management they produce good figures? Furthermore, should we not as a House congratulate British Coal on its fine performance in the past 12 months?

Mr. Walker: Yes. These are substantial improvements on any productivity figures since nationalisation.

Mr. Mason: What assurances can the Secretary of State give about the future of Redbrook colliery in the north Yorkshire coalfield?

Mr. Walker: That is a matter for discussion between the National Coal Board and the industry.

Mr. Yeo: Are not increases in productivity in north Yorkshire and elsewhere one way in which miners can secure their jobs for the long-term, in sharp contrast to the action taken by Arthur Scargill last year?

Mr. Walker: Yes and another result of the good productivity figures is that, under the various incentive schemes, the miners have gone back with good wage packets.

Oil Prices

Mr. Litherland: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what requests for meetings he has received from oil companies as a result of the fall in the price of oil per barrel; and from which companies.

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate his Department has made of the impact of falling oil prices on developments in the North sea.

Mr. Peter Walker: I meet the companies regularly, and they are free to raise any subject they choose. As the market remains volatile, and future oil prices uncertain, it is impossible to say at this stage what the impact will be on North sea development.

Mr. Litherland: Why, since we have had a fall in oil prices, has there been no real reduction in the cost of such things as air travel, and especially petrol, plastic commodities and paint? Does that not show that big business is making bigger profits and that it has cocked a snook at the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Should there not be some real, meaningful discussion?

Mr. Walker: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's premise. There have been substantial falls in the price of petrol. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was jeered for his prediction, but it has been more than surpassed in the period since. As existing contracts come to fruition, there is no doubt that other industrial prices will benefit from the lower oil price.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a number of statements by major oil companies casting serious doubts on long-term developments in the North sea? Should there not be a greater sense of urgency in discussions with the oil companies, so that we do not fall into the trap of becoming more and more dependent on OPEC countries in the 1990s?

Mr. Walker: It would be a mistake to rush through a load of decisions on the basis of an immediate fluctuation in the oil price. I forget what the oil price was when we last answered questions, but it has moved up and down in an erratic way. No one would like to predict with any accuracy what it will be at the end of the year. Rightly, the oil companies have issued warnings that, if prices stay at these low levels, some investment decisions will have to be deferred, but at the moment they are waiting to make a judgment on the market.

Mr. McCrindle: I take my right hon. Friend's point about the renewal of contracts, but is it not somewhat surprising that over a period when the price of crude oil has fallen by 60 per cent. the cost of aviation fuel appears to have fallen by less than 15 per cent.? Does that cause my right hon. Friend any concern? In particular, will he be prepared to draw that to the attention of the oil companies next time they request a meeting?

Mr. Walker: I shall look at the trends in the cost of aviation fuel. There is considerable competition around the world, but I shall look into my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Bearing in mind that for the first time for about 15 years the price of oil has halved, is it true that other energy prices will fall in line with it for the first time for many years? Is it likely that, because of the falling cost of oil, the cost of electricity and perhaps even coal will fall, so that consumers will receive the benefit in their household and industrial bills?

Mr. Walker: Yes. In the electricity industry there is potential competition between oil and coal. Therefore, if the coal industry is to retain its contracts, it must take note of the present competition from the oil industry. Talks are

taking place between the coal industry and the Central Electricity Generating Board with that purpose in mind. If, as a result, the cost of coal is reduced, it will be the consumer, both domestic and industrial, who will benefit.

Mr. Kennedy: As the Secretary of State has admitted that already some companies are postponing investments, would this not be an opportunity for his Department to put pressure on colleagues at the Treasury to hold the Chancellor to his undertaking in the Budget. that if there were clear evidence of worthwhile projects being frustrated changes in incremental investment to the fiscal regime would be swiftly introduced, particularly as the Finance Bill would be an appropriate opportunity for the Government to do just that?

Mr. Walker: No. On the evidence available, I do not think that immediate action of that sort should be taken by the Chancellor. However, my right hon. Friend has ensured in the past and is intent on ensuring in the future that taxation of North sea oil takes account of the realistic assessment of the economic conditions there. I am sure that he will do that.

Mr. Favell: When may we expect a reduction in the price of electricity?

Mr. Walker: When agreement is reached on the price of coal, the benefit to industrial and commercial clients occurs swiftly, because of the nature of the contracts in that area which automatically get reduced as costs reduce. It would be for the electricity boards to decide when and how to fix the domestic tariff.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give us some indication of the impact of the diminution in oil prices on jobs in Scotland? Will he also assure us that, in addition to exhortations to the oil companies to continue developments, the Government intend to take positive action to safeguard the onshore industry, which has been built up so painfully in recent years?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of activity is still taking place in the North sea, and the oil companies themselves very much wanted us to have a further round of licensing. A great deal of exploration work is taking place. However, what happens will depend on trends in the oil price, and none of us can have any certainty about that. We shall have to watch developments and take action accordingly.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) said, should there not be a great welcome for the fall in oil prices? Is not the only concern the fact that there is still too much variance in fuel prices, particularly petroleum? If my right hon. Friend were able to come to Leicester, he would find petrol in Melton road at 1·58 per gallon, which is very good value compared with prices in other parts of the country.

Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that substantial competition is taking place at petrol pumps throughout the country, and the consumer and industry are benefiting.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), is the Secretary of State aware of the impact that falling oil prices are having on the city of Aberdeen? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that we shall be able to receive the benefits of North sea oil in future?


Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that we are facing a short-term problem. Is he satisfied that the Government are doing enough to ensure that the benefits of North sea oil will be available to us soon?

Mr. Walker: Developments are still coming forward on quite a substantial scale. The hon. Gentleman's assessment, that future development in the North sea may be needed because this may be a temporary drop in the oil price and, therefore, we need production in the mid 1990s, is shared by a number of oil companies. That is the reason for their interest in continuing exploration and development and further rounds of licensing.

British Gas

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to discuss privatisation.

Mr. Peter Walker: I regularly meet the chairman of the British Gas Corporation.

Mr. Powell: Given the fall in oil prices and the questions raised by a number of my hon. Friends, and given that there is such a delay in legislation getting through the other place, when does the Secretary of State expect to float shares in BGC, and what does he expect to get for them?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as a result of the elections on Thursday, it is high time that the Government reconsidered their position on this major legislation and withdrew their controversial proposal?

Mr. Walker: I am delighted to say that the progress of the legislation is exceedingly good and that preparations for the flotation are going well. I look forward to the floatation in the autumn, and I shall do my best to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a special form.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that BGC employees are looking forward to privatisation because they will have a direct stake and interest in their industry for the first time, and that customers are looking forward to privatisation because they know that they will get a better service?

Mr. Walker: I believe that both employees and customers are looking forward to privatisation. Doubtless its widespread popularity is the reason why Opposition Members are not looking forward to it.

Mr. Orme: Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the fall in oil prices, we should not sell the shares at any price?

Mr. Walker: I agree that we should not sell the shares at any absurd price, but there is nothing happening at present that will prevent a successful flotation in the autumn.

Moscow (Ministerial Visit)

Mr. Weetch: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Moscow.

Mr. Peter Walker: My many high-level meetings revealed substantial scope for enhanced energy trade with the Soviet Union. The detailed memorandum of understanding which I signed with the Chairman of the

State Committee for Science and Technology opens the way to progress in many areas of mutual interest. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Weetch: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he realise that the widespread reporting of his visit in the press, in the light of the serious events recently in the failure of Soviet nuclear technology, has thrown up a great deal of retrospective interest in that visit? Will he tell the House whether he discussed nuclear safety with Soviet officials? Does he accept that in large parts of East Anglia there are misgivings and forebodings about the serious failure in Soviet nuclear technology, and that he could ease feelings in East Anglia if he would act decisively and recommend cancellation of the pressurised water reactor?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is a matter for the Sizewell inquiry, and decisions on that will be taken when the report is received, which will probably be in September this year.
I had discussions with those responsible for the nuclear industry in the Soviet Union, and I agreed with them the importance of having a better relationship on problems of waste disposal, safety and other technical issues. They expressed themselves in favour of achieving that. Certainly the views expressed in the Soviet Union show that it does want greater liaison, and its attitude of the past few days towards the International Atomic Energy Agency shows some sign that it is now considering taking an international approach to the problem.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to explain to his hosts that the British nuclear programme, which started at Calder Halt exactly 30 years ago this year, is based on gas-cooled reactors? Does he agree that that system has proved itself inherently very safe because, should there be a loss of coolant, there is a longer time to take remedial action than would apply in a water-cooled reactor, where overheating, fire, or something worse, can take place, as we have found out?

Mr. Walker: The heating of the Soviet reactor is on a scale different from any system of reactor operated in the West. There are some fundamental differences. Certainly we are proud of the safety record that has been achieved in this country, and it is important that we ensure that that continues.

Mr. Benn: In view of the openness which is now being pushed, quite properly, by the Government on the Russian Government following events at Chernobyl, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will suspend work and expenditure on the PWR until the full report of the Chernobyl inquiry is available for examination in this country and that the House, not Ministers, will take the decision on whether to go ahead?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. In the normal way the Sizewell report will be examined in full. It will be made available to and debated in the House. Unlike the Soviet system, before any such development takes place here there are planning inquiries and parties can democratically present their views in the House. I expect that the Soviet people would like a similar system in their country.

Mr. Portillo: When my right hon. Friend next visits Moscow, will he extend sympathy to the people of the Soviet Union on the nuclear accident? Will he confirm


now that the nuclear accident in the Soviet Union makes nuclear power in the United Kingdom neither safer nor more dangerous and that the risks involved were taken into account? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to ensure that the debate in this country is conducted rationally, not hysterically?

Mr. Walker: Anybody looking at the long-term problems of energy will recognise that there is tremendous advantage to the world in having this form of energy throughout the next century. People will also realise that there are potential dangers if the industry is not conducted safely and well and with every possible safety measure taken. Therefore, it is important to get proper international standards operating throughout the world.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Secretary of State accept that one future benefit from this appalling accident might be better international co-operation on nuclear energy? Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to use the contacts that he made during his visit to Moscow since the Chernobyl disaster?

Mr. Walker: I immediately contacted the various Ministers I had seen, including the Deputy Prime Minister, who has been placed in charge of the inquiry into the incident. I spent several hours with him when I was in Moscow. I offered the Russians all the help that we could give, and some of the help that they have requested has been provided by this country. Since then I have communicated with the Deputy Prime Minister and asked for the fullest detail of what took place. I also asked that the type of working party that we suggested when we were there should quickly be put into operation, so that we get the maximum collaboration.

Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree, in the light of his visit and the recent regrettable events in the Soviet Union, that a premium has always been, and will now be even more so, placed on this country having the safest form of nuclear power generation? Depending on the results of the inquiry, does my right hon. Friend agree that the safest form might be the pressurised water reactor?

Mr. Walker: There were more than two years of hearings during the Sizewell inquiry and a distinguished person took more than one and a half years to write the report. Before any decisions are made, I think it is right that we all objectively examine and read that report.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State, on his return from the Soviet Union on 27 April, praised nuclear development there and stated that it was an excellent nuclear industry. That was in dramatic conflict with his statements post-Chernobyl. Was he advised on the safety of those power stations, and will he explain the contradiction between those statements?

Mr. Walker: On my return I said that the Soviet Union had decided to double the size of its nuclear industry, and it has confirmed that since. I made no comment at all on the safety elements.

North Sea Allocations

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to complete the allocations to exploration company applicants of blocks in the lastest round of North sea concession areas.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Consultations on the 10th round are now taking place. I expect the round to be completed some time next year.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite the fall in the oil price, he and the Government expect a healthy weight of applications? Will he further confirm, not only that the timetable will be kept, but that British companies will get more than their fair share of these applications?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With regard to the 10th round, what matters is the price of oil, not today, but in the 1990s. The oil industry is a long-term, continuing industry. I am glad to say that I have had every indication from the oil industry that it welcomes the announcement of this round and intends to support it.

Mr. Rowlands: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to pursue previous practice and ensure that, in any developments arising from those blocks, conditions relating to United Kingdom rates and yards will be included in the licence conditions?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While licence applications are being considered, every oil company making an application has interviews with my Department. I shall certainly bear very much in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, I am determined that the United Kingdom should play a full part in the development of the industry, particularly the new high technology.

National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest progress of National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd. in providing alternative employment in coalmining areas.

Mr. David Hunt: At the end of April 1986 NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. had committed £10 million, assisting 488 projects, which will create 6,410 job opportunities. That commitment has generated a further £52·7 million of investment from other sources.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of the figures that he has given, having regard to the number of jobs lost through pit closures, the NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. scheme is almost a complete failure? That is so in my area and in the north-east. Is there to be any increase in the resources available to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? Will any other changes be made to convince the people of the mining areas that the whole thing is not a sham to cover up pit closures?

Mr. Hunt: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made it clear in the Chamber many times that there is no shortage of funds available for those who come forward with proposals for the creation of real jobs in coalmining areas. As for Easington, I understand that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. is contributing towards a study of the east Durham coalfield, which will examine the problems of developing the potential of the area. To date, NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. has provided assistance for nine projects in the Easington area and is at an advanced stage of discussions with Easington district council about building starter units costing about £100,000. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would pause for a moment to pay tribute to the magnificent efforts of those involved in NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. in producing such remarkable results.

Mrs. Currie: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? Does he agree with the comments made by many of my constituents, who have said that the help now available to those coping with change in the industry is far more generous than it was under Labour Governments, especially in the 1960s, when a dozen pits closed in south Derbyshire? Does he agree that the Government keep their promises and help those who need assistance with this scheme?

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the record straight. No one would pretend that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. will provide an immediate answer to the serious employment problems of mining communities faced with pit closures, but it continues to show encouraging results.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware that, in the report on the east Durham coalfield, of which he has a copy, produced by Easington district council, Durham county council and Sunderland borough council, projects worth about £78 million were mentioned, of which £30 million were for the Sunderland borough council area? Is he also aware that, at the careers office, 4,500 youngsters are registered as having no proper jobs and that there are only 94 job vacancies? Why does he not give the £30 million to Sunderland borough council so that it can get on with some of the projects, create jobs for youngsters and, above all, give them some future?

Mr. Hunt: The enterprise company works closely with bodies such as local authorities and welcomes any ideas for the creation of real jobs, but it must be remembered that the enterprise company was established with the principal aim of creating permanent jobs in coalmining areas rather than the temporary jobs that tend to result from the infrastructure improvements proposed in "Communities in the East Durham Coalfield".

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Since the decline in oil prices is likely to accelerate pit closures, will the Government give firm undertakings that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. will be given vastly increased funds to avoid the social and economic friction that will result from that accelerated closure programme?

Mr. Hunt: The important point to make about the company is that it has had remarkable results in persuading into coalmining areas funds that have always been available from banks, in venture capital resources and from other Government sources. It has continued its impressive record. Money already allocated will provide approaching £150 million of total investment. The resources of the enterprise company will be kept under careful review.

Mr. Portillo: Is my hon. Friend as dismayed as I am to hear some Opposition Members carping about the efforts of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? Does not their attitude threaten to undermine the good work that the company has done?

Mr. Hunt: I have been most disappointed by the attitude of some Opposition Members. Others have come forward with extremely good and constructive ideas. I wish that their colleagues would follow that example.

National Coal Board

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Coal Board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board at regular intervals to discuss a wide variety of issues concerning the coal industry.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State be complimenting the chairman of British Coal on the fact that, unlike the miners, he will receive his golden handshake from his firm as well as his wages, even though it takes two to make a strike? Will he ask him to publish a list of those employed by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? It has been drawn to our attention that two of the people who have obtained real jobs in that company are Colin Clarke, who was a member of the National Working Miners Committee, who recently received his redundancy pay from the Coal Board, and Roy Ottey, who did not support the strike although he was a member of the NUM executive, but who supported MacGregor and the Secretary of State for Energy? Is it not a question of jobs for the boys who supported MacGregor, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, and not for displaced miners?

Mr. Walker: The productivity improvements that have taken place in the coal industry over the past year will do more to guarantee future jobs in the industry than anything else that has taken place. We are hearing incredible carping about an organisation that has already produced more than 6,000 new jobs and encouraged £50 million-worth of new investment, with another £10 million being allocated to it. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman would praise the excellent work that is being done, instead of carping.

Mr. Rost: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the board is now giving proper recognition to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers as the only union representing the best interests of the miners and the future of the coal mining industry?

Mr. Walker: The board is giving recognition to those unions which have the majority representation in the various establishments.

Mr. Hardy: As even this Government accept that the coal industry must have a significant future, is it not sad that the board's youngest employee in south Yorkshire is now almost 20 years of age? When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the board, will he point out that the board needs to appoint more young people to ensure that there is continuity of labour and maintenance of skills in the industry?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the board's attention.

Mr. Michael Clark: When my right hon. Friend met the chairman of the board, did he discuss with him the possibility of raising productivity in British pits to a higher level than it has reached already, ackowledging that there has been a great increase in productivity since the strike?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I think the Coal Board is well aware that fierce competition exists in world markets and that it is important to have still further improvements in world productivity.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State urged dismissed miners to put their case to industrial tribunals, and what has been the result? Is he aware that in 62 cases reemployment was advised by tribunals, but that only six dismissed miners have been taken back by the board? Is this justice? What will he do about this?

Mr. Walker: It is a matter for the board, and the board will have to make its decision.

Pressurised Water Reactors

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress towards the introduction of pressurised water reactors in the United Kingdom.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The CEGB's application to construct a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell has been the subject of a public inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will reach a decision on the application as soon as possible once he has the inspector's report.

Mr. Proctor: To reassure public opinion, does my hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea, between the submission of the inspector's report on Sizewell and a final decision being made by the Government, for a full parliamentary debate to be held?

Mr. Goodlad: The holding of a parliamentary debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to their attention.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Instead of investing in a pressurised water reactor, will the Government consider reopening the arguments over tidal barrages, and especially the scheme for the Solway Firth, which would have provided for the production at peak demand of 1,400 Mw? Would that not be a far better way of investing public money? I do not expect an immediate answer on the Solway barrier scheme, but will the Minister at least take it off the shelf, dust it down and re-examine the arguments that were employed 20 years ago?

Mr. Goodlad: Any decision on the PWR must await the outcome of the Sizewell inquiry. I shall consider the issue of the Solway Firth barrage.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the Chernobyl reactor contained graphite moderators, which are not present in PWRs? Does he agree that the sequence of disasters that led to the release of radioactivity at Chernobyl could not occur in a PWR?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Chernobyl reactor is a very different design from the proposed PWR at Sizewell and from reactors currently operated in Britain.

NIREX

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to dispose of the Government's single special share in NIREX; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goodlad: No, Sir.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. Perhaps he would now be kind enough to tell the

House how the share is viewed by his Department and who represents the Department's views to NIREX. Does he agree that it would be better if the Government's interest was looked after by the Department of the Environment, which, after all, has an interest in maintaining and safeguarding the environment? Is not the watchdog too closely identified with the burglar at the moment?

Mr. Goodlad: Whether the special share should be held by the Secretary of State for the Environment or by the Secretary of State for Energy was considered carefully before United Kingdom NIREX was set up. The Secretary of State for Energy answers for the nuclear industry and NIREX in Parliament, so it was considered that he should hold the share. That remains the Government's view.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Minister for the Arts which art forms win most business sponsorship incentive scheme awards.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): The awards are widely spread, but music has received 33 per cent. of the awards, the theatre 21 per cent. and festivals 11 per cent.

Mrs. Bottomley: Although I welcome the fact that music and the theatre have taken advantage of the BSIS, does my right hon. Friend agree that more could be done to encourage local festivals to use this successful scheme, which brings money into the arts through sponsorship?

Mr. Luce: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is enormous scope for sponsoring local festivals, which rank third in terms of the level of support. For example, the Glasgow Festival now has sponsorship. The more that my hon. Friend and others can do to encourage sponsorship, the better.

Mr. Freud: Will the restoration of Hampton Court palace be eligible under the BSIS?

Mr. Luce: That is principally a responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but it does not qualify.

Equity (South Africa)

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Minister for the Arts if he has received any representations from the actors union Equity to apply a cultural sanctions policy against South Africa.

Mr. Luce: No, Sir.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Equity, following a referendum in which only 10·5 per cent. of its members took part, decided to ban its members from working in South Africa? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that decision would be more credible if it applied to the Soviet Union, where the only expression of artistic and cultural freedom is to defect?

Mr. Luce: The High Court has granted an injunction preventing Equity from implementing that policy until the Court has considered its legality further. The matter, therefore, is sub judice. The broader issues are primarily matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign


Secretary, but our broad policy is that there should not be cultural visits to South Africa if they are in any way likely to encourage apartheid.

Mr. Buchan: I agree with the Minister that we should not probe too deeply as this is a matter for judicial proceedings, but does he agree that arts and culture also involve morality and social interpretation? Should not the Minister's party be pleased that the decision was made as a result of a ballot in the trade union? Should it not therefore be supported?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman anticipated that it would not be right for me to comment further on this case. I have explained our policy with regard to South Africa.

EC (Cultural Co-operation)

Mr. Sackville: asked the Minister for the Arts what initiatives he is taking in the European Economic Community to promote cultural co-operation.

Mr. Luce: I shall be chairing a meeting of Ministers of Culture during the United Kingdom presidency and hope to put forward initiatives encouraging further cultural co-operation. In addition, my office is funding jointly with the Community a major symposium by the British Film Institute on "Film and Television: a European partnership", and I expect to have discussions with some of my opposite numbers in other member states.

Mr. Sackville: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that such co-operation should be limited to cases in regard to which there is some practical benefit for the countries concerned?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. Although it is healthy for Ministers of Culture of the European Community to meet and discuss areas of mutual interest, the matter is one principally for national Governments and there should be co-operation only when there is benefit to us all.

Works of Art (Displays)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the extent of works of art in national collections which are not regularly displayed to the public.

Mr. Luce: The proportion of the collections in the national museums and galleries on public display at any one time varies from institution to institution. Most institutions aim to rotate items between public display and the reserve collection. All allow access by members of the public to items in their reserve collections by arrangement. They are aware of the need to improve public access generally, and I encourage them to do all they can within available resources.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that there is some concern that certain institutions are hoarding collections that should be made available much more widely throughout the nations and the regions of the country? As they tend to excuse themselves by praying in aid evidence of the complexity of the indemnity arrangements, will the Government take some initiative to overcome this problem to ensure that there is wider dispersal of these national collections?

Mr. Luce: As I said earlier, the practices of institutions—principally the nine that receive money from myself

on behalf of the Government—are extremely varied. I am most anxious to encourage the maximum exhibition of objects of art—those that are in national institutions and stored away—in all regions of the country, not just in London. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the policy on indemnity. Three out of the nine national institutions have doubts about the Government's policy on indemnity. We have therefore had discussions with them, and hope that shortly all three will join the other institutions and do everything that they can to lend objects of art to various parts of the country.

Mr. Soames: Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend agree that the museum authorities are extremely unhelpful about requests of this type? Will he assure the House that no reasonable and properly underwritten request will be turned down for the loan of such pictures in the provinces?

Mr. Luce: In principle, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the more that pictures and objects of art are lent in various parts of the country the better, but it is up to the trustees of the institutions to decide what they can and cannot lend. In fact, they must have insurance coverage before they can lend. It is that problem of indemnity that I am now seeking to overcome.

Business Sponsorship

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Minister for the Arts if he has given any guidance to the Association for Business Sponsorship in the Arts on matching funds provided by trades unions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: There is at present no special guidance to the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts on funding provided by trades unions; the same rules apply to trades unions as apply to businesses.

Mr. Banks: Why did the Minister support ABSA's recent act of political censorship against the Crucible theatre, when it refused to match a grant from NALGO for the sponsorship of the play "The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui", which is a Berthold Brecht play? Does the Minister approve of this sort of political censorship by ABSA'? Is it not the thin end of the wedge? What other productions would he be prepared to support ABSA in censoring, given that he supported ABSA on that occasion?

Mr. Luce: There is absolutely no question of any censorship on the part of ABSA. The play to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in respect of which the producers had asked for sponsorship from NALGO, went ahead as planned and was not stopped in any way. The sponsorship was stopped, and neither I nor ABSA can accept sponsorship that leads to party political activities and propaganda. To do otherwise brings the whole sponsorship scheme into total disrepute. Sponsorship must therefore be confined to promoting the main products or services, and nothing else.

Mr. Buchan: To be precise, it was not the sponsorship that was stopped, but the matching funds, and that arose because of the interpretation of politics and party political argument. I have read the material carefully. It is certainly political, but it is not party political. NALGO would have used exactly the same argument—and has in the past—in relation to Labour Governments. Does the Minister riot accept that in this interpretation we must make a distinction between sponsorship from private and


commercial firms, which are concerned with profit, and that from trade unions, which are concerned with the wellbeing of their members and of society as a whole? That is the crucial distinction, and if the Minister fails to understand that, he will fail to understand the basis of trade union sponsorship.

Mr. Luce: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that ABSA was unwilling to give the matching grant. Although it is right to allow trade unions to be part of the sponsorship scheme—my predecessor decided that, and I stick firmly to that policy—it is essential that the provision of taxpayers' money in the scheme should in no way lead to party political propaganda. That is what would have happened had the sponsorship been granted.

School Pupils

Mr. Greenway: asked the Minister for the Arts what priority the Arts Council gives to promoting arts for school pupils; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: The Arts Council and the regional arts associations actively encourage all their clients to develop and implement educational policies.

Mr. Greenway: How do those bodies encourage artists to go into schools, and facilitate first-class productions at places such as Stratford-on-Avon for children to see special performances for schools? Does my right hon. Friend accept that efforts with children at this stage will establish an interest in the arts for life, and that that is important?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the subject. The Arts Council has established a specific allocation of funds for educational development work, which amounts to £320,000 in 1986–87. That, in itself, is a substantial increase on the previous financial year. In addition, some of the regional arts associations fund placement schemes for writers, artists, musicians and so on to operate within schools to inspire and encourage the young. That is the right way to encourage schools to participate in arts activities.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Administrative Forms

Dr. Michael Clark: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if Her Majesty's Government are still committed to the simplification and review of administrative forms; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The Government remain fully committed to this initiative. Review procedures are now firmly established in Departments and good progress continues to be made. Between 1982 and 1985 some 15,700 Government forms were scrapped. A further 21,300 have been redesigned. Savings to Departments are estimated at about £9 million per annum. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked the Management and Personnel Office for a further progress report in 1987.

Dr. Clark: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made in the simplification of forms, in particular the use of simpler English, may I ask him whether he will now turn his attention to

simplifying reports and letters written by civil servants? Will he please bring to their attention the fact that the height of sophistication is simplicity?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Plain English Campaign, whose exhibition I recently sponsored in the House, is doing a great deal to encourage the use of plain English. A number of recent examples include Inland Revenue and Department of Health and Social Security forms, which are much simplified and, I hope, of benefit to consumers. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need plainer English.

Mr. Favell: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the passport application form, which is a model of simplicity and could be used as an example for many other forms?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving another example, and there are several of them. The Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the DHSS have all introduced much simplified forms, which benefits consumers.

Civil Service—Private Sector (Personnel Interchange)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps have been taken to encourage interchange of personnel between the Civil Service and the private sector.

Mr. Luce: The Government continue to encourage the policy of secondments in both directions between the Civil Service and the private sector. Last year there were 386 secondments in both directions in operation with industry and commerce, an increase of 28 per cent. over 1984. The details are given in a report on the interchange programme published recently by the Management and Personnel Office, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Chapman: In welcoming that trend, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that there is scope for much greater interchange, particularly to enable civil servants to gain experience in industry, to the benefit of everybody? Will he sympathetically consider the additional incentive of setting up a trust along the lines of the Parliament and Industry Trust to encourage this interchange?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government's objective is to encourage this. I am glad to say that there has been a 28 per cent. increase in 1985 over 1984. There is a Whitehall and industry scheme, which is clearly limited, but has started, in which a number of civil servants are able to have up to 15 days with businesses. This also plays its part. As to the broader area of concern, the information that I have given is confined to the private sector, but at least 520 other jobs are outward secondment for non-civil service sectors, including universities and colleges. This sector should be encouraged as well.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that one of the most important aspects of this secondment lies at a much higher level within the Civil Service, particularly assistant secretary and under-secretary grades? It is there that we are falling far short of what can be achieved. How many of those 386 civil servants come from the assistant secretary and under-secretary grades?

Mr. Luce: The right hon. Gentleman is right to pinpoint the fact that the bulk of secondments come in the principal grade, which is a lower grade. There are just over 11,000 principals. It is true that there are fewer secondments at more senior level. I am examining this to see whether more can be done to encourage secondment at a higher level.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that contact by civil servants with the wider world of industry and commerce would give them a breath of fresh air and invigorate them for their future service in the public service?

Mr. Luce: I hope that that is what civil servants already find. A number of people—just under 200—come in from industry and the private sector for a period of secondment to the Civil Service, and that is also helpful.

Dr. McDonald: How many out of the 386 who have been given this opportunity are women? Will the Minister ensure that women in the principal grades are given proper opportunities, because this will enable them to achieve higher levels in the Civil Service later in their careers?

Mr. Luce: I cannot give an answer to the specific question without notice, but I shall make sure that the hon. Lady's question is answered. As she knows, the Civil Service and Government Departments are equal opportunity employers and we are pursuing that point as vigorously as possible.

Dispersal Policy

Mr. Sackville: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service posts have been dispersed under the Government's programme for dispersal since 1979.

Mr. Luce: Some 5,017 posts have been dispersed since 1979 under the Government's programme.

Mr. Sackville: Does this mean that the number has gone up? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the Government's policy to disperse as many employees as possible from the London area to areas of high unemployment, such as the north-west?

Mr. Luce: The policy that was adopted in 1979 was to disperse 5,900 civil servants to various parts of the

country by the mid to late 1980s. In the past few weeks another 500 or so civil servants have been dispersed to the region around Glasgow, principally from the Ministry of Defence, so progress is being made.

Mr. MacKenzie: How many of the civil servants so dispersed have been of assistant secretary or undersecretary grade, because these are, after all, the policymakers? How much policy can be made by the people in the areas to which they are dispersed?

Mr. Luce: Without some notice I cannot give a detailed answer, but the majority of civil servants are not the policy advisers. Policy advisors remain in London. The vast majority, if not all, are in administrative sectors of one kind or another, and have been dispersed to various parts of the country. It should be stressed that four out of five civil servants are already outside London.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would help to redress the balance between the south and the north, and the south and the midlands, if many of those bodies which receive money and grants from the Government were told that they will continue to receive them only if they move their head offices north instead of using expensive buildings in London, which is often totally unnecessary?

Mr. Luce: Some regions, such as the north-east, have a high proportion of civil servants compared with the total working population. However, I am sure that they would like to have more civil servants. Several regions, including Scotland and the north-east, do quite well in terms of the number of civil servants there.

Dr. M. S. Miller: By how many does that figure of 5,900 fall short of the original Hardman proposals? Will the Minister bear in mind that my constituency of East Kilbride has so far seen only 60 per cent. of the 1,000 dispersed posts promised?

Mr. Luce: In 1979, when the Conservative party came to office, the Government took a clear decision that 5,900 was the right number to disperse. It is expensive to disperse civil servants, and a careful analysis needs to be made of the cost benefit of dispersal. But we are on course, and in the past few weeks another 500 civil servants have been dispersed.

Syria

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the request by Her Majesty's Government to the Syrian Government to withdraw three members of the Syrian embassy from London.
This action followed a meeting between the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir Antony Acland, and the Syrian ambassador, Dr. Haydar, on 1 May. Sir Antony raised with Dr. Haydar allegations about Syrian involvement in certain terrorist activities in this country. On behalf of the police Sir Antony asked that the ambassador should waive diplomatic immunity of three attachés on his staff to enable the police to ask them questions about these allegations. On 5 May, the ambassador replied that the Syrian Government were not willing to allow diplomatic immunity to be waived but would permit interviews with members of his staff on Syrian embassy premises.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office informed the Metropolitan police of the terms on which the Syrian Government were prepared to allow questioning to be carried out. After careful consideration, the Metropolitan police concluded that interviews under such conditions could not result in evidence which might be used in court, and could not assist their investigation. When the ambassador called on 10 May, the Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. Ewen Fergusson, therefore told him that the refusal of the Syrian authorities to meet our request for a waiver of diplomatic immunity, to allow the allegations against three members of his embassy to be fully investigated, was unacceptable. The ambassador was then told that the British Government required the withdrawal of the three attachés within seven days.
Yesterday, the Syrian Government requested the withdrawal of three members of the diplomatic staff of our embassy in Damascus. This retaliation is regrettable and totally unjustified.
We are now considering whether there is cause for any additional measures against Syria. It will be necessary to take into account all factors affecting our bilateral relations with Syria. These include the level of the diplomatic staff whom the Syrians have asked us to withdraw, and the need to protect British subjects in Syria. We shall of course bear in mind the commitments entered into by EC Foreign Ministers at Luxembourg and by the economic summit in Tokyo. We shall also take account of the continuing investigations into the responsibility of various countries for terrorist activity.

Mr. Donald Anderson: We do not, of course, have access to the information on the E1 A1 incident upon which the Government have relied, but we do not seek to dissent from the actions relating to the expulsion of those diplomats. However, how carefully did the Government scrutinise the information on the E1 A1 incident that was derived from MOSSAD? The Israeli intelligence machine has a well-deserved reputation for information, and disinformation too. Clearly the Israelis have their own motives for seeking to turn the West against Syria. It would be helpful if the Minister told the House

whether the special branch has an independent source of information about the attempt on E1 A1, which is the reason for the expulsions.
Does the Minister agree that the evidence which is now emerging about the Berlin bomb incident points in the direction of Syria rather than Libya as the directing Government? If so, were we at the time sufficiently sceptical of the information which we received from the United States—that it used the outrage in Berlin as a justification for its bombing of Libya and used our bases for that purpose?
The Minister concluded his statement with the words:
We are now considering whether there is cause for any additional measures against Syria.
That suggests that the mutual expulsions may not be the end of the story. Will the Minister now distance us from the growing anti-Arab feeling in Washington which has been shown, for example, in the congressional attitude to the Saudi arms deal? Will he avoid falling into the trap which has been set by those who wish to use the terrorist threat as a possible cover for military action against Syria, and also caution the United States Administration, the Israelis and the Syrians about the excalating threat to regional and possibly world peace posed by the confrontation between the Syrian and the Israeli armies both on the Golan and in southern Lebanon?

Mr. Renton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our police are perfectly capable of doing their own leg work and their own investigations on this incident. The police received no information whatsoever from the Israeli sources. The action taken was on the basis of allegations made to the British police. I have noted the reports of the German police investigations into the bombing of the west Berlin discotheque. We have no reason to doubt our earlier conclusions about the extent of Libyan involvement in the placing of the bomb in the west Berlin discotheque.
As I said in my statement, we are considering whether any further measures are necessary. We do no wish to see any escalation of military action. Rather, the incident highlights the need for the peace process between Arab countries and Israel to be continued. In that context, I look forward to the Prime Minister's visit to Israel in the near future.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is this not yet another example of the bad behaviour of the Syrian embassy? For example, there was the case on new year's eve 1977 when two Syrian diplomats blew themselves up with a car bomb in central London. If the Minister is considering further action, will he at least try to limit the size of the Syrian embassy in London to the same size as the British embassy in Damascus?

Mr. Renton: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. He is interested in such matters. We do not wish to enter into a tit-for-tat between ourselves and Damascus. Clearly the relative sizes of our embassy in Damascus and the Syrian embassy here is a point to be taken into consideration.

Dr. David Owen: If the Syrians are shown to have been involved with the Libyans in the Berlin bombing incident, and if the Syrians are shown to have been involved in any way in the E1 A1 attempt to place a bomb, will the Government give an assurance that they will take diplomatic and economic sanctions and will take firm action, even to the extent of


closing the embassy, in co-operation with our European Community colleagues? Will the hon. Gentleman make a clear and categorical statement that the Government will not support retaliatory punitive action by the Israelis against Syria, even if Syrian involvement in the E1 A1 incident is established?

Mr. Renton: We shall not hesitate to act firmly and appropriately if Syrian state involvement in terrorist activities is established as a result of our continuing investigations. Obviously, each situation must be rigorously examined on its merits. We wish to look at the full range of peaceful measures agreed by the Community and agreed at the Tokyo summit to ascertain which measures should be followed if Syrian involvement in terrorism is clearly established.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Although I support the Government's action and recognise that it is especially difficult for a country like Britain to have good relationships with the Syrian Administration, will my hon. Friend keep in mind that Syria has a key role to play in any future peace-making process in the middle east and that Syria is perfectly justified in trying to regain its territory, the Golan heights?

Mr. Renton: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. He is right in what he says about Syria's key role in the peace process. It is notable that President Assad met King Hussein in Amman at the end of last week, doubtless for further consideration of how that peace process could be carried forward.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would the Government he prepared to waive diplomatic immunity if a corresponding request were made to us by another country such as the Soviet Union or Syria?

Mr. Renton: I must confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I find that question surprising. The point is that, in the light of the refusal to waive diplomatic immunity, Syrians were exempt from the obligation to give evidence in court, and in criminal proceedings written or hearsay evidence of interviews would not be admissible. That was why we insisted on diplomatic immunity being waived, and, if it was not, we required the three attachés to leave the country.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's decision is wholly justified in terms of the activities which many British people regard as not just unacceptable but monstrous? To what extent are inquiries being conducted into the activities of so-called diplomats in some other embassies? Will my hon. Friend give a reasonable assurance that no legitimate and passive Arab diplomat or representative has need to fear some Arab witch hunt?

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I can certainly give him the assurance which he seeks—that no Arab diplomat need fear a witch hunt. However, where a clear connection with terrorism is established we shall act extremely firmly in dealing with it.

Mr. Greville Janner: With regard especially to the evil of the attempted outrage and the unparalleled barbarity of the alleged proposed method of carrying it out, I thank the Minister for not falling into the trap of anti-Israel paranoia which seems to afflict many people.
I should like to ask three questions. First, was one of those who were asked to leave a military attaché? Secondly, what was the involvement of Georges Shiha? Thirdly, if and when any relationship is re-established with the Syrians, will the hon. Gentleman tell them that it would be a great help if they gave information to the Red Cross or some other organisation about the whereabouts of Zachary Baumel, whose parents are in London asking for him, and his three colleagues?

Mr. Renton: None of those who has been asked to leave the country by the end of this week is a military attaché. I have noted in the newspapers the reference to Georges Shiha, but there is no evidence to support the description of Shiha's duties which has been given in some parts of our national press. Furthermore, Shiha was not one of the members of the Syrian embassy staff whom the police wished to question.
On the hon. and learned Gentleman's last humanitarian question, I think that he already knows that the matter has been raised by me and others with Syrian Ministers. They say that they are not able to give us any information about the whereabouts of those soldiers who disappeared. Whenever an opportunity arises, we shall continue to press for any information available about them.

Mr. David Sumberg: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's prompt and vigorous response. Will he confirm that, whatever the issues it the middle east, state-sponsored terrorism is unacceptable and that that is the real reason for the Government's action.

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend. Yes, indeed, "prompt and vigorous" is the image of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I agree with him that, under whatever guise and from whatever source it appears, state-sponsored terrorism is one of the evils that the world has to face today, and we, in conjuction with our Community and other partners, will seek every means to combat it.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Do not these apparently incorrect charges about Libyan responsibility for the Berlin disco bombing and these even more convenient charges about Syria as a precursor to an Israeli attack on that country, which seems not unlikely in the next few months, call into question the reliability of both CIA and MOSSAD intelligence, upon which the British Government apparently lean for some information'?
In view of the likelihood that Libya will be proved to have been not responsible for the disco bombing in Berlin, what compensation do Her Majesty's Government intend to pay to the Libyan authorities?

Mr. Renton: In his anxiety to make a dramatic point, the hon. Gentleman appears totally not to have listened to the answer that I gave earlier. I said to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that our evidence of Libyan involvement in the west Berlin bombing remains incontrovertible and that we have seen nothing whatever to contradict it.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Syria, I should like to point out to him, in case he missed it, that the Israeli Prime Minister said in an interview on 9 May that Israel has no intention of attacking Syria and that there is no indication, either, that Syria is about to attack Israel. I understand that these comments by the Israeli Prime Minister have been repeated in an even more recent speech.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Mindful of the fact that when Abu Nidal attacked Shlome Arlov in this country in 1982 this was used as a pretext for the barbaric invasion of Lebanon by the Israelis, will my hon. Friend the Minister of State answer the question of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), on the basis of the allegation about the Israeli airliner, to confirm categorically that there is no justification whatsoever for an Israeli invasion of Syria?

Mr. Renton: On the involvement to which my hon. Friend has referred, I can go no further than I went in my statement. This matter is the subject of police inquiries and I cannot make any further comment.
On my hon. Friend's other point, I must repeat to him what I said earlier, that if the involvement of Syria in state terrorism were to be firmly established, we should not hesitate to act with the utmost rigour, particularly along the lines that have already been agreed for Libya by the European Community and in Tokyo.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Minister help the House by confirming, if possible, that the action of the Syrian ambassador in resisting the claims put upon him by the Metropolitan police was within the terms of the Vienna convention and that the Metropolitan police were attempting to extend their rights under the same convention? Does the Minister accept that our role is to look after British nationals in Syria? Is he able to say how many are involved, because they might be in danger in this tit-for-tat operation, and what advice his Department is giving to them?

Mr. Renton: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I can assure him that there are approximately 250 British citizens in Syria. At the moment we are considering with our mission in Damascus whether any further advice needs to be given to them. On his earlier point, it is not quite right to say that the Metropolitan police attempted to extend the provisions of the Vienna convention. However, it is quite right that the Metropolitan police, through the Foreign Office, sought a waiver of the diplomatic immunity that is given by the Vienna convention. It was this that the Syrian ambassador refused to allow.

Viscount Cranborne: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the surveillance of diplomats who are accredited to London and attached to the embassies of Governments sympathetic to terrorism? If he is, is not such surveillance expensive, and is not that a good reason for reducing the representation of those diplomats in London?

Mr. Renton: That is primarily a matter for the Home Office. I agree that surveillance is expensive. I take my hon. Friend's point on reducing the size of the diplomatic community here. However, there is, almost inevitably, reciprocity in that. If we require embassies in Britain, for whatever reason, to reduce substantially the number of their staff here, it is always likely that they will ask us to do the same in the countries to which our people are accredited. We try to operate near the minimun that we think is reasonable to give the sort of service that the British public, business men and others require.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: In my hon. Friend's opinion, do circumstances exist today which would justify an attack by Israel upon Syria?

Mr. Renton: I repeat that the Israeli Prime Minister has already said categorically that Israel has no plans to attack

Syria, nor is he aware of any plans of Syria to attack Israel. I hope that the peace process can be carried forward, and one factor in that is the continuing occupation by Israel of a substantial part of the Golan heights.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that the firm response announced in his statement this afternoon is justified and necessary but that terrorism will continue to be with us until its root causes have been tackled? In that context, will he urge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to impress upon the Israeli Government the importance of making progress on matters such as the Palestinian issue and attending to human rights violations during her forthcoming visit?

Mr. Renton: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will wish those two points, particularly the carrying forward of the peace process, to be on her agenda when she meets Mr. Peres at the end of the month.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my hon. Friend sure that the three Syrians who have been removed are the correct three, or may there have been more? Secondly, is it not time to serve notice on the Syrian ambassador that in Britain men must behave as gentlemen and that if it is proposed to remove diplomatic immunity and the Embassy wishes its members to remain they should co-operate? Does he agree that, if there is to be bloodshed in the streets of Britain, Syrians who threaten Britain should be removed forthwith?

Mr. Renton: Obviously, the three for whom the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office requested the ambassador to waive diplomatic immunity were the three, and the only three, to whom the police wish to address inquiries. It was because of the refusal to waive their diplomatic immunity that they have now been asked to leave Britain by the end of the week.
The purpose behind my hon. Friend's next question was, I think, to ask what will happen if they do not leave. We have every reason to believe that the Syrian ambassador will agree to their going, but if they do not go we shall have to declare them persona non grata.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I endorse entirely the action taken by my hon. Friend and his Department, but, nevertheless, will he tell the United States Government that, despite evidence of Syrian terrorism, it would be utterly wrong for the United States to undertake any punitive raid against Syria and that, although the Soviet Union may almost certainly have given the green light on the Libyan raid, it definitely would not do so on a Syrian raid?

Mr. Renton: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and there is no doubt that his remarks will be carefully studied and noted in Washington.

Mr. John Stokes: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the actions which he has taken, of which I fully approve, are the result of a quarrel with Syria about terrorism, not a quarrel with the Arab world, and certainly not with the moderate Arab states, whose friendship we value and must take care of?

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend makes an important point which I am happy to endorse. The lesson of these incidents is that it makes it even more important that the peace process should be carried forward speedily and with the help of the moderate Arab states.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Cutlery and Stainless Steel Flatware Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Abolition) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.—[Mr. Malone.]

LAND REGISTRATION BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Land Registration Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee—[Mr. Malone.]

North-West (Investment)

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I beg to move,
That this House, concerned at the long-term implications for public expenditure of the condition of much of the national housing stock and infrastructure, particularly in the North West region, urges Her Majesty's Government to open immediate negotiations with the construction industry with a view to encouraging greater private sector financing of inner city housing and infrastructure projects and a more effective utilisation of existing monies which Her Majesty's Government have made available through a variety of programmes designed to deal with both urban renewal and job creation.
The background of the debate is one of an accumulation of decline, not only in the lifetime of this Government or even the previous Government, but over two, three or perhaps more decades of neglect and lack of investment in our basic infrastructure. The standards of much of our housing and in many of our schools, the state of so many of our public buildings and the condition of our roads add up to a pretty sorry saga.
There is increasing public concern over these matters, as all of us know from our mailbags. Everywhere looks rather shabby. The state of the infrastructure is having a major effect on the quality of people's lives in many areas. They see for their increased rates very little improvement in the basic quality of the infrastructure in their areas.
The facts speak for themselves. The 1977 housing policy review estimated that the nation needed 300,000 new houses per year. In fact, since then there has been an average of only 200,000 starts per year—an accumulated shortfall of about 750,000 new properties. The 1981 house condition survey revealed that 4·3 million houses—about 20 per cent. of the total stock—were unfit for human habitation, lacked basic amenities or required repairs costing £2,500 or more. Moreover, the number of homes in serious disrepair had risen from 860,000 in 1976, when the previous survey was carried out, to more than 1 million.
A recent inquiry by the Department of the Environment into the local authority housing stock revealed that public housing was in an advanced state of decay. The study estimated that more than 3·8 million dwellings—84 per cent. of the stock—were considered to need expenditure totalling £18·84 billion, at an average cost of nearly £5,000 per dwelling. Nearly 40 per cent. of those properties required repairs to the basic structure and external fabric. The backlog of repairs and maintenance of local authority housing has been estimated by the Audit Commission to be growing at a rate of at least £900 million per year.
About 20 per cent. of all primary schools are housed in unmodernised buildings which are over 80 years old. One quarter of all schools have outdoor lavatories and one child in 10 is taught in temporary accommodation.
In 1983 a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate on the effects of local authority policy expenditure on education provision in England directly linked the condition of buildings to educational standards. Poor or unsuitable accommodation was considered to be adversely affecting the performance of one quarter of all the schools visited. In 1984 the position had not changed much. Her Majesty's inspectors reported:
all in all, much of the country's school building stock is in a sorry state of repair and getting worse. Long-standing defects, allied to little sustained improvement over recent times, are


resulting in some cases in a number of school buildings rapidly approaching the stage where repairs are impossible and new buildings may have to be provided.
The report goes on to say:
The continued neglect of the school building stock is not only storing up potentially enormous bills for the future but is also seriously affecting the quality of work and achievement of many pupils and providing a grim environment for them and for their teachers.
The 1981 Government report "Care in Action" admitted that a significant amount of hospital care is still provided in old and outmoded buildings. Three quarters of our hospitals and health centres date from before the second world war and half from before the 1914–18 war and those buildings have not been properly maintained. The Department of Health and Social Security has recently estimated that £1·7 billion needs to be spent to bring hospitals and health centres up to a minimum acceptable standard.
Decay in the infrastructure can undermine the efficient provision of health care in many ways. A recent DHSS report on community homes showed a majority of premises to be in poor shape and general levels of comfort disturbingly low.

Mr. Tony Favell: Is it not a fact that the Government are engaged on the largest hospital building programme ever?

Mr. Thornton: Yes.
The condition of many of our roads is appalling. Frankly, many of them are dangerous. They are a classic example of the consequences of delaying required maintenance work. The average life for a road surface dressing varies between four and eight years. Failure to renew the dressing—the minimum treatment—at the right time can lead to the need for complete resurfacing at a cost per square metre some 10 times greater. If resurfacing is also delayed so that foundations are affected, the cost of restoration is a staggering 50 times that of surface dressing.
Those are the basic facts and give some indication of the scale of the problem. The implications for public expenditure in the long-term are horrendous. It is a huge post-dated cheque. It is not just work of a cosmetic nature, work for its own sake, but work that will have to be done sooner or later—and better sooner than later. It is the classic example of a stitch in time. The window which is not painted today will have to be renewed tomorrow at perhaps 10 times the cost. That is a lesson which every householder knows, and it clearly needs to be kept in mind when considering the future implications for public expenditure.
Clearly more investment is needed. The motion is not just a plea for more money, perhaps not even a plea for more money. However, I would always argue that one can spend more on infrastructure. The motion refers to negotiations with the construction industry as a matter of urgency and a need to establish a partnership with a sector of our industrial infrastructure which can achieve many of the things we all agree need to be done. We need to establish a long-term strategy on which the industry can plan.

Mr. Jack Straw: Would the hon. Gentleman say how much more public expenditure he is calling for?

Mr. Thornton: If the hon. Gentleman listens to my remarks as I develop them, he can draw his own conclusions. I am asking for more effective use of existing moneys. That is stated clearly in the motion, which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) clearly has not read very carefully.
I feel especially strongly about the fact that for so long we have tended to see what I call the scatter gun approach to solving some of the problems. We are throwing too little money at too many problems and significantly failing to solve them.

Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman said that his motion calls for the better use of existing resources. As the Conservative administration in Wirral has now lost overall control, will he make some suggestions to the incoming groups as to how they can better spend incoming resources?

Mr. Thornton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I had the honour and pleasure of leading the Wirral authority at one stage. I should be delighted to talk to the new administration, if there is one, about the ways in which we tried to achieve what I am talking about now, to concentrate the resources we have on solving problems. I have referred to that on a number of occasions as the laser approach. It is much more effective, especially when we are trying to hold down overall levels of expenditure and when we have to recognise the fact that we cannot always allocate the huge sums of money that would be required, to concentrate those sums of money on the specific problems rather than scattering one's shot more widely.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend welcome the fact that in Lancaster and a number of places in the north-west private builders are coming in to take over unwanted blocks of flats and, in my city at least, are on the point of doing them up to an acceptable standard?

Mr. Thornton: The partnership that is necessary to solve many of the basic problems of decline, especially in our inner city areas, is one that I welcome. Certainly my point about the use of the laser is relevant to my hon. Friend's point.
Liverpool has hit the headlines on more than one occasion, very often for reasons which those of us who live on Merseyside deplore. Nevertheless, whatever one's feelings about Liverpool and similar cities, one cannot fail to recognise the problems that exist there, the serious nature of those problems and the fact that much money needs to be spent to solve them. However, throwing public money through local authorities is not always or even usually the best way of solving them.
In Merseyside we have seen one example of the way in which the laser can be used, whereby relatively small sums of public money were put through a Government-sponsored organisation, in this case the Merseyside Development Corporation, in order to solve a particular problem. The problem in Liverpool was the reclamation of derelict land. We have seen in the docklands of Merseyside and we are seeing in the docklands of London the way in which a development corporation of this nature can tackle a specific problem which, in many cases, local government could not tackle. I say that as one who spent a long time in local government.
In its present role, the Merseyside Development Corporation has been able to do something quite


significant and magnificent in redeveloping part of the city of Liverpool. I should like that concept to be expanded still further. Many people have said to me, particularly in the light of the recent political disturbances in Liverpool, that if only Merseyside Development Corporation could be given the task of sorting out Liverpool's housing problems, that would be a significant way forward and a significant step forward.
Merseyside Development Corporation has two advantages. First, by effective management, it bypasses much of the nonsense and political claptrap that we have heard about the problems that the council has faced. It has also shown a singular ability to attract private investment. Relatively small sums of public money used as pump priming have been used to attract private sector finance into the area of the development corporation's ambit. That needs to be expanded when we look at our basic infrastructure problems in future.

Mr. David Alton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the magnificent work that the development corporation has done, but will he tell the House what the figures are? How much public and private investment has there been? Those figures are revealing.

Mr. Thornton: If I had the figures before me, I should be delighted to tell the House, but I have not. All that I know is that, apart from the land reclamation costs, which people always accepted would be high in the initial period, major dock refilling and major problems of dereliction in the docklands that had to be overcome, there has been a growing ratio of private to public pounds, particularly in the Albert dock development. I do not have the current figures in front of me, but I believe that that is likely to increase.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman was referring to the development corporation, but also attacking local councillors. Does he not appreciate that the more he attacks local democracy, the more he puts the whole of democracy at risk? It is only a short extension from his argument that one has a development corporation for local things to suggesting that it would be much more efficient to run the country in that way. Surely it is important to involve local democracy. Unfortunately, the development corporation does not do that.

Mr. Thornton: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will see that the one thing I was not doing was attacking local government. I was saying that on some occasions local government had shown its inability to tackle the problem. I know from my experience what a local authority can do if it is willing to work with the private sector, and if it is prepared to recognise that its own direct labour organisation is not necessarily the best way to deal with housing policy. There is ample evidence, certainly in the example of the city of Liverpool, that the policy on housing, and particularly housing repairs, can be managed in a far better way than it has been managed for many years.

Mr. Frank Field: May I go back to the Merseyside development corporation because I should not like us to refer to it without paying tribute to Basil Bean and the effect of his talents on the whole of Merseyside? I also compliment the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr.

Heseltine), whose vision established the development corporation. People in Merseyside are now seeing the fruits of that.
The hon. Gentleman says that this is the approach that he wants because it does not lead to a substantial increase in public expenditure, but I fear that his message may be so coded that his hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not receive it clearly. Will he tell the House that Merseyside development corporation has spent about £80 million of public money? That is a sizeable sum. If people look at how it has been spent, I think that no one will dispute that it has been spent effectively. If the hon. Gentleman is calling for only minor increases of public investment of that nature, many Opposition Members will support him.

Mr. Thornton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying a handsome tribute to Basil Bean and his team in the development corporation because their work has been spectacular.
I am not in any way seeking to minimise the amount of money that has been spent, but a much more effective way to do so would be to concentrate it on a specific problem rather than adopt the scatter gun approach. We need to give far more attention to that. The development corporation concept has shown that it can work effectively, and it gives far better value for money in many respects than channelling the same amounts of money through local authorities.
I should like to refer to the community programme in connection with the more effective use of money and what the Government are already doing. All of us, particularly in the areas of industrial decline in the north-west, feel that the Government face the task of reducing unemployment. They have shown their commitment by the considerable amounts of money that they are putting into job creation schemes. I question whether the community programme is the right vehicle for such expenditure. I question its effectiveness in several ways. Many people feel that it is merely job substitution and that it would be better to channel the money through the construction industry properly—with adequate supervision, and proper protection for those having the work done in case the work is put in the hands of people who lack the necessary expertise.
Another aspect which is of equal, or perhaps greater, importance in the long term is the training aspect of the community programme. The industry is rightly concerned that if the millennium occurred and the Government tomorrow said that the industry could have unlimited amounts of money, in places such as Merseyside, people would not be able to respond by using the indigenous labour force because, to a large extent, the skilled people are no longer there. If they are, they are in insufficient numbers and not coming forward for retraining and the new jobs which we hope will come from the money that is to be channelled through the construction industry.
The fact is that as long as the present downturn in the construction industry continues, the more depleted the industry's skill reserves will become with the passage of time. The figures show clearly that there has been a reduction in real terms in the number of apprentices coming forward for training in the construction industry. If, as I believe will happen, there was more effective use of Government money, and if there was more work for the construction industry, which I also believe will happen, it would be a sad day for areas in the north-west if we had


to import labour from other parts of the country to fill the jobs created in our region by such an upturn in the construction industry.
One other point connected with what the Government are doing within the present expenditure levels is the argument, waged on many occasions, between the merits of an increase in capital expenditure and taxation cuts. The Government have recognised that job creation is at the heart of their strategy. An exercise was carried out by Cambridge Econometrics which revealed a comparison that makes interesting reading. The study estimated that if one were to invest £500 million per annum on building over a five-year period, that would produce 55,000 jobs at a cost to the public sector borrowing requirement of £198 million per annum or, more effectively, £3,600 per job. The same sum, £500 million, as a stimulus in the form of tax cuts, would produce 20,000 jobs at a cost to the PSBR of £278 million per annum or £13,900 per job.

Mr. Frank Field: Would the hon. Gentleman please repeat those figures?

Mr. Thornton: The hon. Gentleman can read the figures tomorrow in Hansard.
Any figures can be challenged and there must be a great deal of subjective speculation as to what figures relating to tax cuts would achieve by way of stimulus. Even if one was to err on the side of generosity and knocked a substantial amount off the figure of £13,000 and increased the figure of moneys per job going through the construction industry, it is evident that a similar figure could create more jobs at a lower cost in terms of public expenditure. That is an important point which my right hon. and hon. Friends should consider.

Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend accept that the construction industry will flourish where private enterprise flourishes? The greatness of Manchester, Liverpool, and of all the great northern industrial cities was built on the back of private enterprise. People build factories where there are jobs and where there is enterprise. People build roads to towns that are flourishing, and they build houses where workers are in work. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we should encourage private enterprise rather than hoist public spending?

Mr. Thornton: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is not disagreeing with the main thrust of my argument, but he has picked up a specific point that I was about to make.
Nothing I have said has been a plea for increased public expenditure. I am specifically asking the Government to examine their existing expenditure plans to see whether there might be better value for money and whether that money could be spent more effectively. I agree with my hon. Friend that only by having the right environment—and that must include a flourishing and thriving private sector—can we hope to bring about the long-term improvements to which I have referred.

Mr. Peter Pike: On the hon. Gentleman's point about spending, does he agree that councils should be allowed to spend an increased percentage of their capital receipts? What effect would that have? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the present 20 per cent. restriction on capital receipts?

Mr. Thornton: I have already stated my views on that. I believe that councils should be able to spend a higher proportion of their capital receipts. We are facing such a severe problem that we can only tackle it by using capital receipts.
The motion is especially relevant to the north-west, the industrial heartland of the country, which has suffered major and dramatic decline in the past few decades. Major demographic changes have followed that decline and have resulted in poor environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) inferred, we have seen the consequential lack of investment in the area.
We can see the effects of the decline on the environment in Manchester. They measure the size of the holes in the sewers in Manchester by the number of double-decker buses that would fit into them. We have seen the cumulative effect of the decline in the north-west. The lack of employment which has been caused by the industrial decline has led to social and economic decline.
Today's debate has given me the opportunity to draw to the Government's attention the opportunity that is staring the Government in the face. The Government and the people both want the same thing, and that is real jobs. We want not cosmetic jobs, but jobs which give skill training which will guarantee the quality of workmanship of the labour that is needed in our infrastructure. We want work that will improve the environment which we all know to be necessary. We all want to see the standards of houses, schools, hospitals and roads improved, and we want to see stability in the industry. There must be a plan which will enable the industry to plan for the future, not stop, go, stop, stop or half a pace this year and a quarter of a pace next year.
I believe that there should be a long-term project which stretches as far into the future as any of us can see. The problems of our great metropolitan areas will take decades to solve. It is already too late for some areas, but the consequences of further delay are unthinkable. It would be a devastating indictment of successive post-war Governments if Britain were to enter the 21st century still housed educated and cared for in 19th century conditions.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to adopt the spirit of the motion—few would disagree with its spirit—and to give effect to its urgency and to the real opportunity that it presents.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Mine will be only a brief intervention in the debate, as many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. The debate is an important one for the north-west and I thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) for this opportunity to press the claims of a region which is crying out for more investment. This is our chance to try to convince the Mr. Bumbles at the Treasury that we must have more.
In congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his choice of subject, I also commiserate with him on the timing of the debate, which comes hot on the heels of the most devastating electoral defeat ever suffered by his party in the north-west of England. In Manchester the Conservatives were virtually eliminated as a political force in the city's affairs. Elsewhere in the north-west they suffered one spectacular rout after another. Indeed, Macclesfield is now left as the only Conservative-controlled council in the region and, as everyone on the


Conservative Benches must know, the Government's treatment of the north-west was a principal cause of last Thursday's debacle.
Regional imbalance in Britain has increased, is increasing and must urgently be diminished. For all who are prepared to listen, that is one strikingly clear message from the electorate of the north-west. There is now very little regional economic planning, nor any coherent strategy for regional development, and the north-west is among the hardest hit of the losers.
In many parts of the region, unemployment rates are more than double those of the south-east. Youth unemployment is an even bigger scandal. One of the best economic historians ever to write in the English language said of Manchester that talking about industrialisation meant talking about Manchester. Today it is not possible to talk about deindustrialisation without talking about that city. There is gross underuse of resources, mass unemployment, rampant decay and dereliction. We have male unemployment rates of over 50 per cent. in localities all over Manchester. Even more grievously, more than two-thirds of our young people go from school to scrap heap.
In a plea to the Government from Manchester last Wednesday, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) described the housing conditions of many Mancunians as "unforgiveable" and called for more determined action to close the gap between rich and poor in Britain today. He was visiting, as a repentant sinner, a city that has lost over £400 million in grants since the present Government came to power.
The hon. Member for Crosby referred to hospitals. I hope that the right hon. Member for Henley was told in Manchester that our hospitals are also in deep crisis. While DHSS Ministers pat themselves on the back, Manchester hospitals are unable to admit patients who are seriously ill because of swingeing cuts in their budgets and further ward closures.
Ministers can talk until they are blue in the face about pouring more money into the NHS, but doctors in my constituency complain angrily of the closure of their local hospital to all admissions on several occasions this year and of 11 heart attack patients who had to be turned away from Wythenshawe hospital in a single month. While he was in the city, the right hon. Member for Henley ought also to have been informed that Manchester university, in the words of the vice-chancellor, now faces "academic bankruptcy" in consequence of the Government's proposed cuts in funding over the next four years.
"What's good for the south-east is good for Britain" is what many people in the north-west see as the central theme of the Government's policies. They are sick to the teeth of the creeping south-easternisation of this country. They reject the argument that, as the south-east depended a century ago on the industrial might of the north-west, so now the north-west needs the wealth and growing tax base of the south-east.
We are told that "overheating" of the south-east's economy helps to fund investment for a more modern industrial environment in the north-west. That is not true; it does not. Fewer resources than ever before are being applied to rebuilding the most stricken parts of the northwest. In fact, taxpayers there are made to "featherbed" the south-east by supporting commuter services, by paying for London to have more than its fair share of infrastucture investment and by paying for London-weighted salaries.

To give just one more example, 40 per cent. of mortgage tax relief goes to the 31 per cent. of householders in the south-east.
There is an overwhelming case for a statement from the Government on how they intend to correct regional disparities in terms both of economic and social conditions. They must recognise that a solution to the problems of the north-west requires more than a regional policy can provide. The impact of such investment decisions as the proposed massive development of Stansted airport and the Channel fixed link, and indeed the effect of main expenditure programmes of Government Departments, are of the first importance. So also are the main spending decisions of the nationalised industries and major private sector investments.
If we are to stop cramming more industry and housing into the south-east—to the further detriment of the north-west and other regions—every policy decision that affects economic activity must be reviewed to ensure that the regional dimension is fully considered. There should be a statutory requirement for a regional impact analysis of every major new investment project and, more especially, of all main spending programmes of Government Departments. We must also have policies for our airports and tourism that take proper account of regional disparities. In particular, there must be an absolute limit of 7 to 8 million passengers per annum on Stansted and the total elimination of cross-subsidy at that airport.
We on the Opposition Benches are not the only strong critics of the shambles that now passes for an airports policy. Listen, for example, to the judgment of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), an acknowledged specialist in that field, in a debate on the Airports Bill. Speaking of the Government's policy and, in particular, its effects on regional imbalance, he said:
I believe that the policy stinks. The north of Britain is woefully economically deprived. There is a huge economic gulf between the south-east and the north. Why should people be artificially attracted to airports such as Stansted, which they do not wish to use, when the north is crying out for the jobs and infrastructural development that is associated with airports?"—[Official Report, 9 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 257.]
We have a Government who have been refusing to listen not only to the electorate, but even to their most informed parliamentary supporters. I ask them now to listen and to read—and especially to read the policy initiatives called for in "State of the Regions", which the North of England Regional Consortium recently published—and then to act urgently to correct the regional disparities which have so gravely damaged the north-west of England. If they fail to do so, they will soon find out for whom the bell tolls loudest.

Sir Walter Clegg: Like the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) on initiating this debate, which is of especial concern to those of us in the north-west. My hon. Friend made some interesting comments in his introductory speech.
It can be said at the outset that the problems facing the north-west are not new. I have been a Member of this place for 20 years and we were facing the same problems 20 years ago. The problems started in the 1930s with the rundown of the textile industry. The region has suffered


through movements of trade and because of its geographical position, which was once its strength. The problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby referred are long-standing, but he made some important comments which many of us would recognise, one of which was that so much money has been wasted, especially money in the private sector.
When I visit some of our inner cities and, to a lesser extent, the smaller towns of the north-west, I am astonished at the state of housing that was erected only 10, 15 or 20 years ago. It seems that there was a time in the 1960s and 1970s when we built cheap and built into that cheapness expenditure for the future. For example, flat roofs on schools are extremely expensive to maintain. Lancashire county council displayed the state of the school building problem and the problems of maintaining schools in Lancashire. The old Victorian schools had lasted very well, but it is heartbreaking to find that money spent in recent years has not produced value for money in the long term. Instead, it has produced buildings that are extremely expensive to maintain.
I shall give an example—a small one, perhaps—that is typical of the waste that took place. Some local authority buildings, especially some for old people, had an inexpensive electrical heating system built into the floor. Such systems were so expensive to run, however, that the residents could not afford to use the heating system that had been provided. Had there been higher capital spending and a cheaper system to provide heating, so much the better.

Mr. Robert Litherland: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that some of the rubbish-build, system-build and package deals of the days of which he speaks were disastrous and that local authorities are now reaping the whirlwind. Does he agree that Governments of both complexions of the 1960s and 1970s altered housing subsidy with a view to high density system building, a move in which local authorities were not involved? Therefore, previous Governments have some responsibility.

Sir Walter Clegg: I am not laying all of the blame at the feet of local government—the mania seemed to sweep the whole country. Nor was it peculiar to the northwest. For the very best of reasons, men and women of good will tried to do the best for their communities but landed us with an extremely difficult inheritance in a short time.
I am attracted to the motion and the idea of bringing in private industry because private industry can build what people really want to live in better than anyone else. If we had done that rather than build some of the monstrosities that were erected, we should have been in much happier circumstances today.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: We all agree about some of the devastating buildings that went up in the 1960s, but almost all of the system-built blocks of the 1960s, certainly in the Manchester area, were built by the private sector, not the public sector.

Sir Walter Clegg: Much of the work was put out to the private sector, but presumably the plans were approved by the customer—the local authority—and the Government

consented to the buildings. I am not blaming anybody; I am merely describing what has happened so that we might learn the lessons.
As usual, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe made an interesting speech and I should like to take up some of the issues that he raised. One was Manchester airport and regional airports such as Speke and Blackpool. Any subsidy to Stansted which would affect development at Manchester would be outrageous. For reasons that I have given in the House before, we need development at Manchester. I would not go as far as to condemn the Channel tunnel, as did the right hon. Gentleman, as there is a certain geographical inevitability about it and we combat it in vain.
We can get better value for money from public money. It should be used on infrastructure, but it must be used correctly. There has been some interesting debate about whether local authorities can do their tasks properly. I started my career in local government and it is clear that the demands on it have changed. Perhaps the lack of expertise in many commercial matters contributed to present difficulties. If local government is to run commercial enterprises, more commercial expertise will be needed to replace the administrators of the past.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe also spoke about the Health Service. The resource allocation working party has affected hospitals in the south-east as well. Resources have been deployed to the north-west. The allocation of resources in the north-west has been somewhat at Manchester's expense, with funds going to authorities such as Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde, which is a poor relation of all district health authorities and has been denied for years.
I do not know whether hon. Members have heard the great shout that shifting resources to the north-west has aroused in the south-east and London. The television and local newpaper reports down here have been full of it. Any reallocation of resources will cause any Government problems.

Mr. Straw: There is a reason for people shouting about the Health Service all over the country. There have been cuts in health services in the south-east and in the north. There have been cuts in the number of staff in Blackburn and Manchester. RAWP was never designed to be an excuse for absolute cuts in the Health Service in London and the south-east. The difference between the Government and the Labour Government is that RAWP is now being used as an excuse for such cuts.

Sir Walter Clegg: I did not intend to use RAWP as an excuse. I was in on the early discussions, and it was absolutely necessary if a wrong, which had been created many years before, was to be put right. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Government's treatment of the Health Service. He knows that there are more doctors and nurses than when we came to office. It is a demanding service. A large hospital has been built in Liverpool and the money required for such provision is immense. I envisage no end to demand. That is one of the difficult problems which will face any Government. People will always want more. We have to do the best that we can.
As a northerner, I am deeply depressed by the north-south divide which is springing up. I do not want it to happen, as it will be bad for the country. Scotland and


Wales have development agencies and perhaps we shall have to think about something along those lines for England. I saw in today's newspapers a huge advert put in by the Welsh Development Agency, trying to attract modern industry to Wales. It made me think that perhaps we have not the resources in the north-west to do the same on the required scale.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby for giving us a chance to speak for the north-west once more. His idea of involving the private sector could produce results far and away better than what we have achieved with similar expenditure before.

Mr. David Alton: I utterly agree with the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) about the problem of having to deal with mistakes that were made 12 or 15 years ago. In my city and others in the north-west, putting right the system building and the massive municipal bantustans which stretch facelessly from the railway lines to the cemeteries, the spine blocks and the cluster blocks, which people have rejected, is becoming a nightmare for many local authorities. Resources will have to be made available if we are not to avoid demolition of blocks—which can be witnessed in my city at the moment—that are only 12 years old. As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) said, the resources can come from the private as well as from the public sector.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wyre about the NHS. He referred to the new hospital in Liverpool. I am not especially beguiled by massive new schemes. Indeed, there is much to be learnt from the mistake of building great hospitals such as the one in Liverpool. It is too big to be administered properly and visitors get lost. I have received many complaints about the sheer scale of the place—not about the staff who work extremely hard or about the facilities which are extremely good. Perhaps we did not think sufficiently about what is of use to human beings and too much about what was of use to the architects and planners who have created these nightmares, be they in housing or the NHS.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) talked about regional disparities. I agree that it is no coincidence that the 100 constituencies with the lowest level of unemployment are situated in the southeast of England. We are all conscious of the sun belt that has grown up on the western side of London. That contrasts with constituencies in the north-west, where it is increasingly difficult to make democracy relevant in areas where unemployment is as high as 50 per cent., as it is in parts of my own constituency. It is extremely difficult to hold the line for democracy and democratic values when people from the extreme wings of politics—militants in particular—are able to ensnare those whom democracy has rejected or has little to offer.
That is why it is important that we debate this motion. We should all he grateful to the hon. Member for Crosby for making this time available to the House so that we can discuss these important issues. Obviously, I do not agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, as he will no doubt have realised from my interventions and those of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). In particular, I am at variance with the phrase in the motion
a more effective utilisation of existing monies

given that no more money may be available for the public expenditure cake. There is a need for more money to be made available. However, I recognise that we can sometimes use existing resources more effectively, and I agree with the view expressed about direct labour organisations. Nevertheless, there is a desperate need for more resources.
Organisations such as the Merseyside development corporation need more public funds if they are to carry on with land reclamation schemes and the renovation of Albert dock. Although one would like to see the injection of more private funds, that has been disappointingly small compared with the public money that has been allocated to date.
The motion is lacking in that it adopts a cosmetic approach to the problem rather than getting to the heart of the difficulties faced by the north-west—a total lack of public and private resources. Only four or five weeks ago, the Government had an opportunity to do something about this, and I was disappointed that they decided to give £1 billion in tax cuts rather than making more resources available for the construction industry or for cuts in employers' national insurance contributions.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Crosby dissociated himself from that decision, and I suspect that in the future there will be even more opportunities to do so, because the Government have already indicated that a further £4 billion may be given away next year to reduce the standard rate of income tax to 25p in the pound. That should not be our chief economic objective in the context of our social priorities.
I also despair about the way in which we have given away about £30 billion in North sea oil revenue that has come into the coffers. I despair that assets amounting to £7·6 billion that have been sold off since 1979—a further £14 billion will be sold off between now and 1989—have not been reinvested in the economy. That is why I agree with what has been said about capital receipts. It is scandalous that local authorities, having sold off council houses, are not able to reinvest those resources in their local economies. I would not object so much to privatisation or to the sale of properties if the resources that were liberated were reinvested in the economy.
There is also the cost of keeping people unemployed. The Treasury now estimates that it costs £23 billion to keep people out of work. That is ludicrous when there is so much work that needs to be done.
The week before last some of us were present in Westminster abbey at the celebration service for the Domesday book—a survey carried out 900 years ago. At that time, William the Conqueror, having despoiled many parts of the north of England—and known by the epithet of "the harrier of the North"—sent his men to survey the north of England. They saw the damage that had been done and the ravages that had taken place in the north. Those incidents were carefully detailed in the Domesday book. If a similar survey were carried out today, I wonder what would be found. If surveyors were to go there now, they would find that another harrier had been at work. They would see cities that are dying, estates that are disintegrating, roads that are collapsing and homes that are decaying. They would find the people demoralised, including many disillusioned and embittered young people who are now resorting to heroin. Half of all the crime in the north of England is now committed by young people. There is bitterness, hopelessness and


despair. People are short on hope, and although they are our greatest resource, they are left to lie idle on the dole queue and consequently become increasingly embittered and dejected. That resource must be matched with the need, and that is why we should invest more in things such as homes.
There is a need to spend more on improvement grants. More than 500,000 homes still do not have inside sanitation, running hot water or bathrooms. That is nonsense while 400,000 building workers are standing idle on the dole.
The same can be said of house insulation. In 1979, £35 million was spent on energy efficiency, but in 1986–87 that has been reduced to £8·3 million. Throughout the northwest there are council estates and terraced houses where the heat is going out through the roofs because of inadequate insulation. There is work to be done in that regard, and there are building workers waiting to do it.
Many empty council and private dwellings could be used for people in need. In my own city alone, more than 6,000 properties in the public sector are standing empty while people are in need of those homes. We ought to encourage co-ops, self-help groups, private enterprise and the public sector to tackle those problems. That is why, when I was housing chairman, I encouraged organisations such as Barratts to come into Liverpool and to embark on low-cost homes-for-sale schemes on derelict land in the inner city. That is why I encouraged Barratts to take over disused tenement blocks in places such as Myrtle gardens and to build low-cost flats for sale, all of which have been bought by people who now live in the heart of the inner city.
Imaginative schemes are possible, but it needs pump-priming. It is significant that, in his evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment just over a year ago, Laurie Barratt said that schemes such as Minster court and the one in Salford would not now be possible because of the additional burdens that have been placed on construction firms and the lack of Government incentives. There should, therefore, be more pump-priming and help for private enterprise which embarks on such projects.
The hon. Member for Crosby also spoke of the need to spend more on roads, sewers and schools. I agree that the conditions in some of our schools are absolutely primitive. The construction of a Mersey barrage should also commend itself to the Minister and should be supported by hon. Members. That would be a symbol of hope for the people of Merseyside in particular. It could supply one third of the electricity requirements of Merseyside as well as create thousands of construction jobs. It would create new deep sea water facilities in the mouth of the Mersey and a massive area for recreation. Private enterprise has shown an interest in such a scheme. It would cost about £222 million, but when compared with the cost of a new nuclear power station at about £2·5 billion, that is small money indeed. Like the Channel tunnel, such a scheme should commend itself to the Government, and I hope that they will consider it seriously.
We cannot dodge the fact that more resources are needed. There is no point in robbing Peter to pay Paul. There is a desperate need for more resources in the public sector as well as pump-priming to encourage the private sector. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crosby for

drawing our attention to these important matters and concentrating our minds on the enormous problems facing the north-west.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) on his success in the ballot and commend him for his choice of subject.
It is a matter of regret that we can spend many hours each Session in the House discussing the problems of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, yet we must win a raffle to get three hours to talk about the problems in the north-west. I shall spend a few minutes of that valuable time dealing with the housing problems that we face in the north-west.
The housing problems of Hyndburn are typical of many areas in the north-west. Sixty per cent. of our houses were built before 1914 and most were built before 1890. Eighty per cent. are owner-occupied, 41 per cent., or 11,000 properties, would qualify for repair or intermediate grant, and 10 per cent. have no fixed bath or inside toilet. It is a depressing position.
The Government are to be congratulated on recognising our problem and increasing our HIP allocation. Last year, Hyndburn borough council spent £1·8 million on improvement grants—eight times as much as in 1978–79, when it spent £233,000. At present levels of expenditure it will be 30 years before each owner-occupied household can expect to enjoy basic amenities in a property free from major defects. Although we are grateful for that increase in allocation, it is still not enough. We are worried that it may be reduced, which would be economic madness.
Either we improve our present substandard housing and keep it in the private sector, or we allow it to deteriorate still further so that, eventually, it must be demolished and replaced by council houses at six or seven times the cost of an improvement grant. That invariably means that the householder is rehoused in an area where he does not want to live in a house he cannot afford, and that, subsequently, he needs and receives further subsidy from the public purse. Given that the Government are committed to reducing public expenditure and increasing owner-occupation, I fail to see how that latter course of action can help to achieve either.
The way forward must be through an increase in spending on home improvement grants. That being so, I ask the Government to increase their support for the neighbourhood revitalisation service scheme. It presents them with an obvious opportunity to help. It was set up and designed to tackle the problem of encouraging local authorities and the private sector to work together in their own interests and in an organised way. Basically the scheme is committed to an assault on some of our rundown housing areas, each comprising 2,000 to 3,000 houses, through fostering community programmes, based on making the most effective use of limited public resources and maximising private funding.
The four pilot schemes in Sheffield, Oldham, Bedford and Gloucester have been most successful, and areas in the north-west would benefit greatly from the extension of the scheme. The initiative is now at a crossroads: either it can tick over as an interesting applied research project or it can be developed rapidly to 150 or more schemes at a modest budget of £6 million. From experience of the pilot


schemes, it seems that a ratio of 1: 3 of public to private sector money would be generated over four years. A modest start of a constant 25 projects would require new funding of just over £1 million. That would generate £25 million of HIP allocation and £75 million of private sector investment. It would create 1,084 jobs on site and 360 jobs in factories producing building materials. At £759 a year per job it must be a bargain. It must be the answer to our two major problems—housing and unemployment. Those problems are so massive that the Government and local authorities alone cannot deal with them. The public sector, the private sector and individuals must all work together to solve them.
The north-west, with so much substandard housing, would be a major beneficiary of an extension of the NRSS. I welcome the fact that even a small increase in funding would enable a scheme in Hyndburn to go ahead. The benefits of an extended NRSS are enormous in terms of reducing unemployment, providing decent housing and generally giving a boost to areas such as the north-west. It is an efficient, effective way of spreading scarce resources. I urge the Government to seize this opportunity to provide the small amount of extra funds necessary to allow a minimum of 25 new schemes a year to go ahead. By doing so, they would demonstrate that they continue to recognise the problems of the north-west and that they are prepared to deal with them.

Mr. Robert Litherland: I, too, welcome this opportunity to debate the motion, and congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) on moving it.
Obviously, hon. Members from all three sides of the political spectrum will raise their voices today in favour of the development and well-being of the north-west. We have raised our voices many times in the Chamber. Only a couple of weeks ago Lord Dean of Beswick raised his in the other place. The chambers of commerce, the chambers of trade and the trade union movement have raised theirs. We have all spoken about the decline of textiles, engineering, chemicals and paper manufacturing in the north-west.
The trade unions, in their 1986 Budget submission, made a number of interesting points for an improved regional industrial policy. They called for a restoration of the money removed by the savage cuts in the regional industrial budget, which had nearly halved the programme since 1979. The north-west has lost about £50 million a year as a result. Those resources should have been used to support companies coming to and expanding in the north-west. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that that can be done without any financial investment. He wants something on the cheap, but unless we can bend the Government's ear and unless financial resources are invested in the region, we are wasting our breath, as we have done in previous debates.
One of the main planks of infrastructure investment is the reconstruction programmes. The trade union movement proposed a £290 million programme of investment in houses, roads, schools and hospital building in the north-west. All hon. Members know of the housing waiting lists from the great numbers of people who attend their regular advice bureaux. The housing waiting lists have increased by about 40 per cent. since 1979, and the backlog of repair work is reaching crisis proportions.
We have some heavily used motorways and trunk roads, all of which require a great deal of maintenance, and replacing and renovating such infrastructure would assist the north-west. As a Member of Parliament representing the inner city of Manchester, I do not need to be told about the number of road collapses that occur. It is sometimes said that one needs a helicopter to get across Manchester because the roads are collapsing as a result of worn-out Victorian sewers. These are massive problems. Hon. Members have talked about the school and hospital buildings that are outmoded and inadequate. A reconstruction programme would, in addition to improving the attractiveness of the region, create about 60,000 jobs.
Most of the infrastructure changes would help to rebuild public services. We need to rebuild our public services, particularly increasing expenditure on education and health services. About £180 million needs to be spent in these sectors. We are talking about real money because this cannot be done on the cheap. The TUC budget package, if implemented, would give a £900 million boost to the regional economy and would create about 30,000 jobs in the first year and up to 90,000 jobs over the next four years.
The inner city of Manchester has tremendous housing problems, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Crosby. Governments of both political parties changed the subsidy on housing and invited local authorities to build high density tower blocks and provide system-built package deal housing, the problems of which we now have to face. Some of these "highways in the skies" have been built for only 10 years, yet the bulldozers are being moved in to demolish them. One can never assess the social deprivation caused in those years.
In housing we do not need speculators' dreams of system-built housing, but brick-and-mortar traditional housing with gardens—the homes that people desire. In the north-west over 92,000 households are overcrowded, over 131,000 dwellings lack basic amenities such as a fixed bath or an internal WC and 388,000 dwellings require major expenditure. At this rate, it could be more than 20 years before enough houses are built to meet current needs alone. Moreover, the current efforts on improvement are equal to less than 7 per cent. of demand. The number of dwellings falling into the unfit category now outstrip new build and renovation.
We all know that the motorway system is bad. Anybody who drives to and from Manchester, as I do, will know how many road repairs are being carried out in the northwest, and a great deal more needs to be spent on this. We have been calling for railway electrification for the northwest, but so far the Government have not agreed to allow this. We also need a rail link to Manchester airport. Stansted airport has already made its rail proposals, which have been accepted. We had to have a debate in the House to stop that Stansted line from going ahead because Manchester is still waiting. If the Government would give us the go-ahead on the Manchester rail link, we should have no objection to Stansted. However, the drift to the south-east means that Stansted will get heavy and hidden subsidies, which will be to the detriment of Manchester.
We are still waiting for the rapid line transport system in Greater Manchester, and I hope that, when the opportunity comes, I shall be able to introduce a Bill to bring fast modern tram cars into the centre of Manchester.
These are all exciting ideas. The will is there. We require the resources to carry out such plans.
A great deal of attention has been paid to derelict land. In the north-west we have about 10,000 hectares of treatable derelict land, and this is about 29 per cent. of the total for England as a whole. North-west local authorities have put in bids totalling £70 million for derelict land grants, but the most optimistic reply, from the Department of the Environment, is that only £5 million will be available in any one year. That would merely scratch the surface.
Almost every day I see derelict sites in my constituency. For example, in 1978, in just one section of Manchester—the north-east—manufacturing employment accounted for 63 per cent. of all jobs. Since that date, the job losses in manufacturing industry there have been dramatic. Between 1979 and 1983, at least 12 firms employing more than 100 people closed. These include international names such as Laurence Scott Engineering, Richard Johnson and Nephew—which had celebrated 200 years in existence and which was the finest manufacturer of wire in the world. They have closed, and closed for good. Some 350 jobs have gone at Easicut Tools, and Walden and Makin have lost 270 jobs. Now, GEC Switchgear, a company that is supposed to be the epitome of all that is good in profit-making, will lose 300 jobs before the end of the year. Last week I heard that Manchester Steel, the last steel mill, was closing for good. This is not like the 1930s. These firms are closing for ever, leaving empty monuments to the past. These are vandalised, which leads to dereliction, and the local authorities have to pick up the pieces. That happens regularly in inner city areas such as Manchester.
The environmental consequences of these changes can be seen in vacant and unused land and buildings. One quarter of the industrial land in the east of Manchester is vacant. The Manchester city council, through its initiatives, has tried to take steps to remedy the problem. It has spent about £8 million in acquiring land and buildings to carry out demolition, but if this is to happen and new buildings and businesses are to be enticed into the area, more finance and resourcing from central Government is needed.
The city council has pressed the case for funds to be provided on a regular programme basis and we are arguing that £10 million is needed over the next three years to carry out reclamation of derelict land building. The Government should be committed to Britain's industrial future—one that would support industry and its workers as other countries do. It has frequently been pointed out by trade and commerce that we are not comparing like with like. In other countries industry is subsidised and is getting favourable interest arrangements. As a result, we cannot compete. The Government must listen to the voices from both sides of the north-west today. We are asking for some action.

Mr. Tony Favell: Recently the lease on my house in London came to an end, and I went to docklands to see whether I could afford a house there. It was the first time that I had visited London's docklands, and I found acre upon acre of dereliction. I have read in the newspapers and heard in the House of the good work that

is going on in docklands, and no doubt it is; but it will take decades to solve that problem. Anyone who walked through even half of the area would realise that. When I saw the problems that exist there, even though the City of London, with all its wealth, is only two or three miles away, I realised how great the problem is north of the Wash.
I have lived in the north all my life. I was born there, brought up there and worked there, and I know the north well. Docklands is a minuscule problem compared with the problem in the north. If we in the north-west, or the north-east, expect the taxpayers of London and the southeast to come galloping to our rescue and solve our problems overnight, we have another think coming. When Labour Members continually bleat and say, "As long as we get grants, or a little more money from Westminster, our problems will be solved", they do the north a disservice, and the sooner they realise it, the better.
We must remember that the greatness of the north was built on private enterprise. Liverpool's greatness was built by the people of Liverpool, not by the people of London, Southampton or Brighton. It was built through the sweat, labour and hard work of the people of Liverpool. The same applies to Manchester, Sheffield and Newcastle. If we continue to kid our people that Government grants will solve the problems, we shall do them a great disservice. It is a lie, and Labour Members know it.
We must encourage private enterprise, which is what we are doing in Stockport. Our unemployment is less than 10 per cent. Stockport is in the north-west and has suffered the same problems as everyone else, but we have encouraged enterprise, and it works. Unemployment is less than the national average; it is far less than the average in the north-west. We have no enterprise zone and we receive no grants. The only way in which we shall solve the north-west's problems is by the hard work of the people who live there. We cannot rely on the help of the hard-pressed taxpayers in the south-east; and they are hard-pressed, with mortgages of £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 for houses that they could buy much more cheaply in the north-west.

Mr. Ken Eastham: This is one of the rare occasions when we can make a few comments about the north-west. The great pity is that this is a short debate and we must be brief.
Some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) were offensive to some residents in the north-west. The people of the north-west are not asking for handouts from the southern counties. They are asking for their just entitlement from the Government. The Labour party believes that the Government should spend money in our areas to the same extent as they invest it in the south. The money that is invested in the south does not belong only to southerners. It comes from the taxpayers of Britain. For that reason, we are making a just demand on the Government and saying that we are entitled to a share of the money. We have not received our share and that is why one. speaker after another, including Conservative Members, have made similar demands.
The north-west has made probably one of the biggest contributions to the welfare of Britain since the industrial revolution. Its contribution is beyond comparison with that of any southern county. The north, including the northeast, brought all the greatness to Britain. It was not the


southern counties. It is about time to dispel some of the stories being told, including those of the hon. Member for Stockport. Nowadays, we receive nothing like the amount of money to which we are entitled.
There has been massive investment in airports, but not in the north-west. The great success of Manchester airport has been due to the tenacity, ingenuity and courage of the people in the Manchester area in supporting their airport with their money. We have never received handouts, as has been implied. That is why we object to money being invested in places such as Stansted. We hear that the Government will invest thousands of millions of pounds in the new Channel link, which will not create a single job after construction is completed. It will merely siphon off more jobs and expenditure to the south, leaving a desert in the north-west and the north-east of England.
Matters became even worse after 1979. I clearly remember hearing the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, say that he would remove industrial development area status from many of the areas represented by hon. Members in the Chamber today. He removed industrial development area status from Manchester, which meant that no grants were available. Company after company was induced to move to other towns and leave established factories because they could obtain grants in those other areas. About two years ago, the Government had to relent, change their policy and reintroduce industrial development area status.
The people of the north-west have always been pioneers, and I resent anyone saying that the people of Manchester and Liverpool are lazy and want only handouts. That is not the case. The pioneers who built the Manchester ship canal, Manchester airport and other developments were second to none.

Mr. Alfred Morris: And Trafford park.

Mr. Eastham: I shall discuss Trafford park in a moment.
The Government have some responsibilities that they cannot avoid. It is not fair to tell the people of the northwest, "You must do it yourselves." Communications are the Government's responsibility', and Government money should be spent on them. We do not receive the money to which we are entitled. Speaker after speaker today has drawn attention to Manchester airport and the just demands for the railway spur. It is incredible to hear the Government talk about a possible rail link for Stansted. We do not even know whether it will be a success. Yet the Government have been procrastinating for years about the decision to encourage the railway authorities to invest the money.

Mr. Favell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we all have the future and prosperity of everyone in the northwest at heart? Should we not emphasise what the northwest has to offer? We have the finest motorway network in the country; we should tell people about it. We have the finest airport outside London; we should tell people about it. We have good, cheap houses; we should tell people about them. If people need to modernise their houses, the building societies would be only too pleased to lend them the money to do so.

Mr. Eastham: That is precisely what I have been saying. We are the people who pioneered Manchester

airport. Depite having a rotten Government, we have spent money on priorities such as communications. We object to massive sums of money being pumped down south, where the people have not been working any harder than those in the north. That is a legitimate complaint to make against the Government.
Trafford park is dear to me. I worked there for several years as a planning engineer, when GEC alone employed 25,000 workers. Now only 12,000 workers are employed in the whole estate. Yet in one way or another Trafford park affects 500,000 people. It was one of the first industrial estates in the world to be built and was created not by the Government or by those in the south but by the people of the north-west.
It is a fact of life that there has been a decline in our traditional manufacturing industry. We in the north-west recognise that and know that it is not the result of neglect. Industrial trends have changed. Microtechnology was unknown before the war. But that does not mean that the people of the north-west should not have a share in some of the new industries. During the past two years no fewer than 25,000 jobs have been lost in Trafford park. But all is not lost. There are many opportunities, if only the Government would take them. The north-west has a skilled labour force. I marvel when people say that there is a serious shortage of skilled labour in the south, because in the north-west skilled men and women work as attendants in hospitals, or in parks. They could be doing magnificent, highly skilled 'work.
The north-west has an excellent road network. Land is immediately available, so there is no need to waste time. We can make quick decisions. The infrastructure already exists in Trafford park. Gas and electricity are already laid on and everything is there waiting, yet we do not gel. the Government assistance that we need.
We have some of the best education facilities in the world, let alone in England. People are sent to Manchester university or Manchester polytechnic because those institutions are the home of high technology. Much of the technology in computers and the chip came from the northwest. Yet to the Government's shame, the north-west has never shared in the prosperity to which it is entitled.
Local authorities can deal with many of the problems, but the Government must first help. They must encourage investment in the north-west, and must give more urban development grants. The Minister may refer to Trafford park's great potential at the end of the debate. I know that he has been there. But Ministers tend to go to Trafford park, say that it has great potential and that they will do something, and then go away and do nothing. It is not only politicians but industrialists who are dissatisfied. They, too, say that something must be done. It is not good enough for Ministers to come along, say that they will look into the matter and then go away never to be seen again. Another Minister then comes and goes through the same rigmarole. He has a walk round Manchester and the industrial estates and then goes away and does nothing.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: While the Minister was there, he might see 6,000 empty houses and flats. The hon. Gentleman was talking about quack decisions. Does he not think that Manchester city council should make a few quick decisions, and follow the example of Bolton council, which has used Government money in co-operation with private developers to clear up such problems?

Mr. Eastham: I do not mind dealing with housing, and if time permits I may come to that. Sometimes decisions cannot be quick, because we are talking about years of neglect. The Conservative party has been in office since 1979, so we are not asking for a quick decision when we tell the Government to get off their bottoms, get up north and do something about it. They should get on with the job for which they were elected.
I was in local government for a good number of years, and know that the legacy of old Victorian schools meant that people were desperate to build new schools. But all Governments said that that would cost too much. Consequently, authorities could not build schools with the pitched roofs that they wanted. The Government would only allow so many thousands of pounds for building a primary school. It was not a question of people not realising the problems involved with flat roofs; it was merely a question of money. Perhaps that answers some of the points made about schools.
Housing is a very sensitive area. I remember scores of debates on housing and its problems. Contrary to what the hon Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said, properties are vacant not because of local authority neglect but because of the massive cuts made by the Government which have affected home improvements. Massive modernisation schemes were stopped in their tracks after tenants had already been moved out because there was a stop on the money. Does the hon. Gentleman think we should have moved those people back in even though the property may have needed a new roof or have had defective electrics that could have been a fire hazard? The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East spoke about 6,000 houses, but there are 110,000 council houses in Manchester. It is thus understandable that some of them will need maintenance. I hope that answers some of his cheap points.
Only last week I received a letter from the managing director of Wilson's brewery saying that he was sorry to advise me that nearly 300 jobs would be lost in July. He said that there would be redundancy pay and so on. But people do not want that; they want jobs. As long as this Government remain in office, people know that they will not get another job—;

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Rubbish.

Mr. Eastham: If the hon. Gentleman would care to stand on his feet, I will deal with him. It is not rubbish for me to tell Conservative Members that there are now nearly 4 million unemployed. Do they call that rubbish?

Mr. Hind: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the past 12 months the workforce has increased by nearly 1 million, from 23 million to 24 million? That has happened despite the fact that the number of school leavers has increased greatly due to the earlier birth bulge, and has outnumbered those retiring. Is he further aware that once the birth bulge is reversed the unemployment trend will reverse and begin to fall? Many people have accepted their responsibilities and have said to themselves "I will get myself a job." They have gone out and got one. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that his sort of defeatist talk gives the north-west a bad name?

Mr. Eastham: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect 4 million people to jump on bikes and find jobs in another area. The hon. Gentleman is deceiving himself if he

believes that more jobs have been created. If he analysed the Department's figures, he would find that many of the jobs to which he referred are part-time jobs. The full-time jobs are going. The part-time jobs tend to be the worst jobs and the lowest paid. People cannot even survive on such low wages. That is what the Government are aiming for.
Wilson's brewery told me that nearly 300 of my constituents will be out of a job in July. In its letter to me, the brewery said that it is an old plant and it is to move to a more modern plant in another town. That decision had nothing to do with the work force. It was not taken because of any neglect on their part. No investment has been made in the brewery. The workers, through no fault of their own, are losing their jobs. The Government ought to spend more money on refurbishment and modernisation in industry to keep jobs.

Mr. Favell: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why Wilson's brewery is investing in a town other than Manchester?

Mr. Eastham: I will not go into the mechanics of Wilson's brewery. Wilson's brewery owns a chain of pubs in Manchester and makes much of its profit as a result of people drinking Wilson's beer. When Wilson's closes down, there will be a few hundred fewer people spending money in its pubs. If the people of Manchester were to boycott Wilson's brewery and say, "If you cannot invest in Manchester, we will not buy your beer", it might reconsider its position.
High unemployment places many burdens on local government. It is unfair that local government must make provision for social services and so on because people are unemployed. The Government's philosophy is that of low pay for workers, not giving workers a fair deal, and attacking fair wages. Hon. Members will see examples of this in the debate on the Wages Bill on Wednesday and Thursday this week.
The Government have imposed massive increases in transport costs. That has placed another burden on the low paid, because many of them do not own cars. Those who rent council properties have been faced with fantastic increases as a direct result of Government policies.
The north-west is right to remind the Government, as it did in last Thursday's election, that citizens will not forget the dismal policies and failure of the Government during the past seven years. I am sure that the Government will be swept out of office at the general election.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) for giving the House an opportunity to consider the problems of the north-west. I ask the House to consider the Opposition's view of those problems. Let us not forget that many of the problems inherited by the Government in 1979 were the direct result of the economic disaster that was foisted upon us in 1976 by the Labour party, which went to the International Monetary Fund, borrowed money left, right and centre, and slashed capital programmes completely.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Especially hospitals.

Mr. Hind: Especially hospitals. An amount of £1 billion was slashed off the hospital building programme, and the public have a right to know. Those problems were inherited by the Government in 1979. The Government


had not only to pay back the money that was borrowed and rectify the economic disaster but to restore the capital programmes that had been vastly reduced by the Labour Government. It ill becomes Labour Members to complain and whine about the state of the north-west when they have blood on their hands regarding the problems that face us today.
I am proud of the north-west and the part that my constituents play in it. It is worth taking a few minutes to put before the House some of the successes in the northwest—for example, private housing. In the whole country, in the third quarter of 1985, new orders for housing were I l per cent. up, and 21 per cent. up on the same period in 1984. The figure was 15 per cent. up on 1981. In 1985, £27·8 billion was allocated for private housing construction—the highest level since 1981. The Government's policy is that, if possible, every person should be given the opportunity to own his own house. I am pleased to say that 63 per cent. of the people in this country have taken the opportunity to do so. Well over 1,500,000 have purchased their houses from local authorities under the right-to-buy programme.
Nobody denies that there is a shortage of housing. It is a problem which we should be tackling, but there are successes in the private housing sector. The north-west is an example. The north-west is doing much better under the Conservative Government than it ever did under the Labour Government.
The north-west has probably one of the most ambitious hospital building programmes ever seen in this country. A sum of £600 million is to be spent over 10 years. Hospitals are to be built in almost every major centre in Lancashire and the north-west. In December 1988, a £19 million programme will commence for phase one of a new hospital in my constituency, followed by a further £16 million three years later. There will be a new hospital in 1994 at Skelmersdale, at a cost of £3·5 million. My constituency is not an exception. Other north-west areas are in a similar position.
Those who complain about hospital wards closing down forget that the Warnock report showed that we should close down the Victorian asylums, which we politely call mental hospitals, and move the mentally and physically handicapped into the community. That has taken place, ending many of those old hospitals. We must remember that when a new hospital is built, an old one tends to close down, because the facilities in the new hospital are much better.
Manchester airport has been mentioned. There is only one airport outside London which is classed as an international gateway. The White Paper contains a proposal to build a rail link between Manchester and the airport. The Government made a commitment to that. A working party has been established to consider a rail link. The airport terminal was recently refurbished. Six million passengers will go through the airport this year. It is projected that the figure will rise to 13 million passengers in five years. The White Paper also contains a proposal for a new second terminal at Manchester airport. The runway has been extended. Some hon. Members were not fully supportive of the Airports Bill because it was felt that it could go further. The Government said that they would not tolerate cross-subsidisation between London airports in order to give Manchester airport a proper chance.

Mr. Litherland: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.

Mr. Hind: This is a Conservative achievement. Labour Members are naturally cynical about it and would never give it the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Eastham: rose—;

Mr. Hind: The first railway line to be electrified between major centres in the north and Euston, London, was the north-western line. That line is electrified all the way while the north-eastern line people are still fighting for electrification.

Mr. Straw: They are not fighting for it. Et is happening.

Mr. Hind: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that comment.
The motorway network in the north-west is probably the finest in Britain. Our colleagues in the south-east complain that we have more motorways than they ever dreamt of. Our motorway network planning has been imaginative. My constituency is on a motorway T, on the M58 and the M6.
If we abolished the dock labour scheme in Liverpool—I hope that will. happen in the next few years—the port of Liverpool would be more competitive and would advance ahead of the non-dock labour scheme ports it the south-east.
I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) about the loss of jobs. To what extent is that caused by Labour-controlled authorities overcharging on the rates? Last year, industry spent as much in rates as it did in corporation tax. That is the size of the overheads faced by business. To improve competitiveness and achieve tight worldwide competition, industry must have lower costs. That is why some Conservative-controlled council areas are benefiting from industries which have moved from places such as Liverpool to areas in west Lancashire which have well-controlled, well-run Conservative councils that keep the rates down. That is a fact of life, and those who complain must look at what they are doing.
The Government have led the field in the north-west in the enterprise agency movement. It was pioneered in St. Helens and Rossendale. Rossendale was so successful that it lost its assisted area status.
We must consider the north-west as a whole. How many constituencies there do not qualify for Government grants, for industrial selective assistance and regional development grant? My constituency, except for two parishes, is a fully assisted area. In the financial year 1984–85, we received £3·5 million in regional development grant alone to create new jobs, to build our factories and to improve the infrastructure.

Mr. David Sumberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that Bury, which had long suffered from not having such assistance, was granted it two years ago? Is he further aware that recently one of the leading companies and the largest employer in the Radcliffe part of my constituency, the East Lancashire Papermill Company, announced a £20 million development programme? Do not such actions, for which the Government rightly take credit, help to reduce unemployment in the north-west?

Mr. Hind: I agree with my hon. Friend.
That is not the end of it. I have said that there have been major successes in the north-west, but we should consider some of the problems. Like my colleagues, I shall not say that everything in the garden is rosy. There is a strong argument on the industrial side for having a north-west development agency similar to the development agencies in Wales and Scotland. Many of my colleagues must object to the advertisements on Granada Television showing the sun coming up over the Welsh mountains with a Welsh choir singing. It must stick in their throats to know that such advertisements are showing the competition faced by the north-west in attracting new regional industries. Perhaps we should do the same and repeat the successes of the Welsh Development Agency on Deeside in south Wales and of the Scottish Development Agency in silicon valley in north-east Scotland.
About 47 per cent. of schools in Lancashire are church schools and 35 per cent. of our pupils attend them. There is a strong argument for providing more money for new projects and to improve those schools. There is an argument also for improving those schools controlled directly by the Lancashire education authority—for example, by alleviating the flat roof problem which occurs in schools throughout Britain. Recently, an all-party delegation comprising hon. Members from both sides of the House—including the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and me—saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to argue the case for the north-west, especially Lancashire. There is no doubt that greater infrastructure spending is needed for the north-west.
Despite the problems, there have been improvements—for example, in housing and schools. What is the answer? It comes down to the economic argument. It is no good following the path that the Opposition want to take. Their proposed fresh public expenditure of £24 billion—an increase of more than a sixth—would lead to an additional 5p or 6p in the pound on income tax. That would destroy jobs and everything else that is being done and would create inflation beyond our wildest dreams. There are alternatives.
It boils down to an argument which is taking place in the Conservative party between infrastructure spending and tax relief—between spending the £3·5 billion or £4 billion which may be available next year and giving it out in tax relief. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will bear in mind hon. Members' comments. The problem, especially in the north-west, is unemployment. Increased infrastructure spending will help us to tackle it. In some communities, including Skelmersdale in my constituency, there are estates with 40 per cent. male unemployment where people have little skill except in the building trade. I believe that there are about 800,000 building operatives in Britain without jobs. Those people will be assisted by infrastructure spending on housing and home improvement grants, road maintenance, school maintenance and public building maintenance as a whole where the work is labour intensive. Such spending will attack the unemployment problem and assist us to improve our infrastructure.
It is no good the Opposition complaining about the reduction in housing improvement grants. Under the

Labour Government, those grants were well below £100 million. Since then, they have increased by well over seven times.
The north-west cries out for improvements in capital spending. The Government must balance the needs of the economy. They must look at the books and consider what we can afford. Perhaps in future, as the economy grows, as it has done in the past six years—;

Mr. Straw: Ha, ha!

Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman laughs. He does not want to hear that the economy is doing well. He wants the unemployed as a massive army to vote Labour so that he can tell them how badly off they are and say, "Do not worry, chaps, we shall put it right, just like we did in 1976." But we all remember the IMF. That is not the answer. Infrastructure spending will have an important role to play as the British economy develops further under a Conservative Government.

6 pm

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) is wrong on so many counts that it is difficult to know where to begin. However, let me tell him about spending on hospitals. His hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) has been beating a path to the door of the Secretary of State for Social Services on many occasions in recent months because he refused to honour the promise to build the Altrincham hospital in the borough of Trafford. That failure affects my constituents. Furthermore, his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) has joined Labour Members in trying to ensure that British Rail and the Department of Transport do something about the rail link to Manchester airport. Despite their White Paper, this Government are notorious for not honouring their promises. They have not yet delivered on that promise.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West referred to the Government's success in the public sector. He referred to the success of British Rail's electrification programme and to the success of the local authority-owned Manchester airport. Opposition Members agree with him about that, but in the north-west the private sector has failed abysmally to honour its part of the bargain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) referred to the problems at Trafford park. I intend to refer to Trafford park, too, because the hon. Member for Lancashire, West referred to the success of the private sector in Conservative-controlled authorities where there are low rates. The borough of Trafford claims to have one of the lowest rates in the north-west. For many years it has been a Conservative-controlled and extremely doctrinaire authority, and Trafford park has lost more jobs than have been lost in any other borough in the north-west. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West shakes his head, but he does not know the true position.
I could read out a list of companies that were once great manufacturing companies. I could refer to companies, such as the General Electric Company, that have shed thousands of jobs under this Government. Greengate Cable has just laid off nearly 300 workers in my constituency. I could also tell the hon. Gentleman about companies such as Ingersoll Rand that have laid off employees and closed factories in Trafford park because


it has been impossible under this Government to sustain manufacturing investment. The result of the Government's failure to invest in the infrastructure in that area is that it has been impossible to persuade industry to reinvest there. It has been impossible to get the Arnold Weinstocks of this country to reinvest in Manchester when they can reinvest more successfully in other parts of the country. Who would come to Trafford park when it is in such a poor condition?
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has visited Trafford park. He is one of the few Ministers who has made it to the north of England, and that is possibly why he has been asked to reply to this debate. The Minister has intimate local connections with the north-west and he is one of the few Ministers who has listened to the arguments. But a Secretary of State ought to be responding to this debate. This job should not have been fobbed off on an Under-Secretary of State, who is always dragged out to respond to debates of this kind. A Secretary of State who knows about industry in the north-west and about the need for investment in the industrial infrastructure of the region should have replied to this debate. However, a Secretary of State is not to respond to the debate, which means, sad to say, that it is a downgraded type of debate. But that is what the north-west deserves, according to this Government's priorities.
Conservative Members have bleated about the role of the private sector. What is the role of the private sector in housing? Several blocks of flats in my constituency have been sold off to the private sector for improvement. Improvement is badly needed, but the local authority was forced by this Government's policies to sell off those blocks of flats. The local authority would have preferred to improve those properties, but it did not have the money with which to do so. Their sale means that many of my constituents, with massive housing problems, will be unable to be housed by the local authority for many years. In one case, eight adults are sharing a small terraced house. One of the young couples in that extended family has no chance of being offered a house in Trafford because, as an authority, Trafford has failed abysmally in its responsibilities.
Trafford's policy of flogging off council property to the private sector means that the waiting list will not get shorter. The reality is that those with money will continue to have access to private sector housing in Britain. However, there is no hope for would-be council tenants. There will continue to be overcrowding and ever-lengthening housing waiting lists.
I should like the Minister to tell me why the northern regions, with their massive housing problems, have received less money from the housing investment programme during the last two years. Why has the housing investment programme allocation of the southern region and London been increased? The northern regions, with their massive housing problems, have suffered from this policy. What have Conservative Members been doing about this? The north-west region has been one of the biggest losers. Its housing investment programme allocation has been reduced from 15·7 per cent. to 14·6 per cent. What have Conservative Members done to ensure that the north-west receives its proper allocation?

Mr. Tom Pendry: Nothing.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend says, "Nothing" and of course he is right. The north is faced with massive housing

and transport problems because of disinvestment by the private sector. It has moved its investment to the southeast. The amount of money that has been made available by the Government is irrelevant to the problems that face the northern regions. Voters may be attracted by the idea of fine tuning, of a subtle change in public and private sector investment and of a more efficient use of public money, but that will not solve the problems of the northwest. It will not solve the problems of the thousands of families who need to be housed. It will do nothing to create jobs for the thousands of people who are unemployed. It will do nothing to create the infrastructure that is urgently needed.
The work force in the north-west has great talent and great skills, but there is a leeching of those skills and a bleeding of those assets because of the failure to invest and reinvest by both the private sector and central Government in a sensible and adequate training programme. Our greatest asset in that region is the skilled work force, but we are bleeding that region. The responsibility for that will continue to lie with this Government until the day comes—very shortly now—when they are kicked out of office.

Mr. Tom Sackville: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) for raising this important issue, which affects many right hon. and hon. Members. I shall risk being unfashionable in seeking to find common ground with the Opposition. I agree that more investment in the north-west is needed. However, the Opposition seem to imply that it is in the Government's gift to bring that about. That is not true. The Government can do a great deal but we have to recognise the Government's limitations in the private sector. The real problem is the disparity in private investment between one part of the country and another. The amount of money being invested by the private sector in the south of England is many times larger than that which is being invested in the north-west. That is the main reason for the growing disparity between the various regions. That problem has to be addressed. It is no use arguing with each other about policy.
Why is the economy becoming more and more centralised in the south-east? There seem to be various reasons for it. They are partly to do with history and partly to do with the fact that some traditional industries are closing down or reducing their capacity, in particular in the north of England. It also appears to have something to do with the fact that for many reasons London is becoming the centre of finance and various new industries. When a new industry closes down in one part of the country it is not replaced there but new industries appear in a narrow band somewhere between London and Swindon. No Government can try to reverse that trend by themselves. It is up to regions such as the north-west to attract business back.
There are various ways that the Government can help. The first is with major infrastructure projects, which are needed not just for their own sake but to attract industry to a region. For example, in the Bolton area we have long been campaigning for the trunk road network to be completed. Last year the Government promised the M6-M61 link—route 225—which will do a great deal to complete the network and improve industries' communications in a westward direction. It will also do a great deal


for road safety. We have also been campaigning for a long time for the Windsor link between Victoria and Piccadilly and we now have a promise of that. Such projects are vital if we are to make the region more attractive to industry.
Hon. Members have mentioned the airport. That is a major asset of the north-west. It is unlikely that modern businesses will decide to set up in the north-west without good air travel facilities. I endorse what has been said by others about the rail link. Even if the rail link between Manchester and the airport does not meet British Rail's current criteria, it should be recognised that it is vital that everything possible is done to help Manchester airport to grow and serve the region in future. If the rail link does that, Ministers should look carefully at the criteria that they are using and do everything possible to reach a favourable decision.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend deplore the action of trade unions which call for strikes at Manchester airport when the Government are doing so much to encourage investment there?

Mr. Sackville: I agree. The last thing that we need do in the north-west is to shoot ourselves in the foot in that way by closing an airport for the day. What can possibly be achieved by that? The one-day strike must have destroyed a great deal of business.
The Government can also help regions through regional grants. It is wrong to talk about the Government pouring money into other parts of the country. Public sector investment per head in the north-west is much higher than in other parts of the country, as will be borne out by the statistics. Again, we must not confuse public sector investment with private sector investment. On the other hand, it is not that easy to convince Government to give the north-west the right priority. I notice from a recent parliamentary answer on regional selective assistance that in 1985–86 Scotland received £41·6 million, Wales £21.7 million and the north-west, with a comparable population, £10·8 million.
Money for other infrastructure projects such as housing is important and I should like to see housing allocations reflect more accurately the real needs. The allocation of housing money in Britain should be affected by the unemployment rate in the different regions.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) that a Secretary of State should reply to the debate. I have no worries at all about my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment answering the debate. I am sure that he will do so ably. However, the Government should, in all their decision making, take greater account of the regional impact of what every Department does, whether it is a matter of health, housing or whatever. Britain needs a better and more comprehensive regional policy. Then perhaps we shall have a better and more equal spread of private investment in the regions. One of the regions most in need is clearly the north-west.

Mr. Peter Pike: This is an important debate. The north-west is asking for nothing that it is not entitled to. Britain's wealth and prosperity in the previous century and in the early part of this century was made in the northwest which was the cradle of the industrial revolution.

Indeed, it is because we were the cradle of the industrial revolution that we face many of the problems that we do today, which need a solution and demand more money from Government sources.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) who said that the private sector can largely do that job. I do not deride the private sector and say that it has no part to play in this, but at the end of the day the problem is so vast that the Government must provide the money that is needed.
As has been said by several hon. Members, the rail link to Manchester needs electrification. I welcome the proposed introduction of Sprinters on the line from Manchester to Blackpool, but that line also needs electrification, as, ultimately, does the east Lancashire line which has now seen the welcome introduction of the Pacer trains.
We need the M65 link to the M6 and M61. There is a strong case for a link from the M65 eastwards into Yorkshire and to the M1. We need that because the M62 is overloaded. Another transport feature of the area, which is evidence of the industrial revolution, is the Leeds and Liverpool canal. The Government have a duty to support the project, at present under study, to deal with the obsolescence and dereliction along that canal and they should make funds available for that. It runs as a ribbon through Lancashire and into Liverpool and resources are needed to deal with the problem.
The project that has been undertaken at Wigan pier will be a tremendous improvement and its example can be followed in Lancashire, Wigan and, indeed, in the Weavers triangle in Burnley.
Lancashire needs some £44 million over the next five years if we are to bring our schools into an adequate state of repair. In my constituency one school was closed earlier in the year and the county council has now decided that two schools need repair and rebuilding as a matter of priority. To carry those schemes out will mean taking money from other parts of Lancashire unless the Government are prepared to make money available.
Those are just a few of the points that can be made. We need resources. The Government need a change of direction and if they do not make it they will get the answer at the next general election.

Mr. Jack Straw: We have had an excellent debate and I thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) for arranging it.
We had a major contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who drew our attention to the "State of the Regions" report from the North of England Consortium, which is supported by all the local authorities in the north, and speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I am pleased that the debate has also been attended by my hon. Friends the Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and by my right hon. Friends the Members for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
It has been recognised, certainly since the early 1970s, that there has been a major inner city problem in this


country with its roots in complex economic and social factors that go back at least to the war. However, the scale and depth of the problem have become much worse in the past seven years.
Ten years ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), when Secretary of State for the Environment, made a major speech in Manchester which signalled a change in the Labour Government's approach to inner cities and the start of a major effort by that Government towards the inner cities. He drew attention to the appalling unemployment in the Liverpool travel-to-work area, which stood at 12 per cent.—a rate which is now below our national average for unemployment. Today's figure for the Liverpool travel-towork area is 21 per cent. and in many parts of Liverpool the figure is up to 50 per cent.
We see the same story across the rest of the region with unemployment at 15 per cent. in Manchester—even on the Government's fiddled figures—and in Blackburn and Burnley, 19 per cent. in Widnes and Runcorn and 18 per cent. in Rochdale, the Wirral and Chester.
However, unemployment is primarily an urban problem. Even in the north-west there are areas of great and sustained prosperity. For example, cheek by jowl with my constituency at Blackburn is the rural area of Ribble Valley, where the Clitheroe travel-to-work area has the second lowest unemployment rate in the country at 5·6 per cent. It is over the hill and far away—another country. We are dealing with partly a regional problem and partly a problem of the major conurbations. There are similarities between the problems that we face in the north-west and those that are faced in the hearts of London and Birmingham.
Jobs are an indicator of the depths of the problem, but so, too, is housing. The decay of the housing stock in both the public and private sectors in the north-west has been cataclysmic. There was a small increase in expenditure in 1982, with the pre-election splurge on improvement grants, but that has been it. The figures of the decline of housing investment, even allowing for the relative improvement in expenditure on grants for the private sector, tell their own tale. A sample of eight boroughs in the north-west—Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Knowsley, Sefton, Rochdale, Blackburn and Blackpool—shows that, at constant prices, £285 million was allocated to those areas for housing investment in the last year of the Labour Government. This year, it is £94 million—a cut of two thirds in housing investment.
Another indicator of the problems is the extent of social and economic decay, which have been most obviously and graphicaly illustrated in the past decade by riots of a sort that we have not seen since the turn of the century, and by the level of drug addiction and the idleness and waste.
There are many causes of the problems faced by the inner cities. Official policy, reacting to overpopulation after the war and in the 1950s, favoured decentralisation and moving people out of the cities. Many people in the cities did not need official encouragement and moved without any encouragement. Overestimates of population growth led to great emphasis being placed on the growth of new towns, with the inner cities suffering.
In addition, we have seen the results of market forces, with companies deciding that it is more profitable to leave the inner cities and invest outside. They have done that in

great numbers, which is one reason why Ribble Valley is much more prosperous than Blackburn. though the people are roughly the same
The Government's constant refrain is that problems have been caused and not solved by the use of extra resources. We have heard from the chairman of the Conservative party, who is now basking in the glory of last Thursday's election results, that the problem of the inner cities was that money was thrown at them. We remember the inner city debate in which we were treated to an intellectual extravaganza by the chairman of the Conservative party as he heaped one insult on another in an effort to prise open the problems of the inner cities.
However, even more thoughtful members of the Government, who have nothing to do with the chairman of the Tory party, have been dragged down to that level. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that in the 1960s and 1970s
vast sums were literally thrown at the inner cities."—[Official Report, 4 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 293.]
That statement is simply untrue. The record shows that in the 1960s and 1970s, precisely because of the emphasis of policy away from the cities, money was not thrown at the inner cities. Of course, money was spent on housing, but it was principally spent on slum replacement and would inevitably have had to be spent. The emphasis of expenditure was not towards inner cities but away from them. It was against that background that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) made a speech in the 1970s when he was Secretary of State for the Environment in which he spoke of the revolt of the cities. They were revolting against the lack of expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney—against all the odds—turned the engine of Government towards the inner cities, but generally there has not been expenditure on the inner cities; they have been neglected.
When examining the record of the last seven years, no one could accuse the present Government of throwing money at the inner cities. There has been a catastrophic loss of resources. A total of £2·4 billion of rate support grant has been taken away from the north-west compared with 1979—£370 for every man, woman and child in the region. As I said, housing investment programmes have been cut by 66 per cent.
Everyone accepts that Liverpool has a housing problem, yet its housing investment programme has been cut from £66 million to £26 million. Manchester's programme has been cut from £96 million to £26 million, and Salford's programme has been cut from £50 million to £14 million. Even Blackpool, which has a housing problem, despite the fact that it is represented by a Conservative council, has seen its programme cut from £7 million to £1 million. That is a record of utter neglect by the Government.
We have also seen the neglect of public transport. There have been cuts in subsidies and fare increases and soon there will be chaos and anarchy as a result of the deregulation of the buses. There is no doubt that a good and cheap public transport system is critical to keeping industry in the inner cities. The British chambers of commerce say in their latest submission that the Tyne arid Wear metro has had
a magnetic effect on company location.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said, the same would happen if the rapid light transport


system and many other improvements in public transport were introduced in Manchester. Instead, in response to the crisis in the inner cities, we have had only cuts in public sector investment, and that has been a major contribution to the crisis.
Partly in consequence of the neglect of our region, the voters gave the Government a massive rejection at the polls on Thursday. I should put on record the fact that not one of the urban councils in the north-west that were up for election last Thursday remained Conservative. Indeed, of the 29 councils up for election in the region only one stayed Conservative, and that was Congleton—hardly a major urban centre.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), is a wet. I was told earlier that Ladbrokes quote the odds against his becoming Secretary of State for Education and Science at 1,500 to one, and we wish him well. However, while we know the hon. Gentleman to be a good wet who agrees with us rather than with the chairman of the Conservative party, he supports and sustains the Government, as do all the other Conservative Members who have been wringing their hands. The Government's problem is that, like the Bourbons, over the past seven years they have forgotten nothing and learnt nothing from their experiences.
One reason why those of us present on the Opposition Benches are Socialists—at least, all but one of us are—;

Mr. Alton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Straw: We are Socialists because we do not believe that market forces alone can benefit the people. We believe that a free market wastes resources. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in the inner cities. Although it is rational for companies to decide to establish their firms outside inner cities if they find that land, transport and communications are cheaper, it does not follow that the aggregate total of those decisions is of benefit to the country as a whole. The hidden hand of the market does not work in that way. The result is that resources are wasted within the inner city and outside.
Conservative Members may disagree with my analysis about the failure of market forces to produce welfare, but they should wake up to the consequences of neglecting the inner cities for their heartland areas.

Mr. Hind: rose—;

Mr. Straw: I shall not give way because of the time.
It is true that on the whole inner city areas are Labour controlled, but if the inner cities are neglected the problem will flow to the Conservative semi-rural heartlands. The pressure will be on for building land. People who have moved into green and pleasant countryside areas to get away from city hordes will find that all sorts of housing estates are popping up and that filthy factories are being run next door. The developers will have a riot on their hands such as the one in Essex, which is faced by those trying to develop the green belt area around Tillingham hall. I may not appeal to the social conscience of the Government in pleading for inner city policy, or pleading that they be converted to our view of Socialism, but, rather like the argument used by the public health protagonists in favour of the Governments of previous centuries doing

something about cholera, I say that unless we do something about inner cities the problems will spread to the areas of Conservative Members.
If we felt that private enterprise would work to provide a solution, as the hon. Member for Crosby suggests, we would support the motion wholeheartedly. However, I ask hon. Members to look at the record. Look at the record of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Five years ago he took a bus load of entrepreneurs around Merseyside and said, in exactly the same terms as we have heard today, that all they had to do was harness the private sector and all would be well. Look at the fact that Inner City Enterprises, an institution set up to harness entrepreneurs and big institutions to the inner city, has managed to produce only £3 million to £5 million and the National Westminster bank, a key backer of ICE, has pulled out.
That is the record of the private sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Derek Hatton"?] Let us look at the record of the present Secretary of State for Education and Science before Mr. Derek Hatton was even thought of. I have said that the Conservatives have forgotten nothing and learnt nothing. The rhetoric we are now hearing is the rhetoric which the House and the country heard 23 years ago from the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, then the Minister responsible for housing. The inner city problem was described as a "twilight" problem. The right hon. Gentleman was going round the country saying that private enterprise had to be brought in to solve the problems of inner city housing. He said:
The energies of private enterprise must be released in this field as they have already been released, most successfully, in the field of town centre redevelopment.
Local authorities were forced to put up tower blocks all over the country because of the subsidy policy of that Minister and because the appeal to the private sector to be involved in the development did not work. It wanted the profits from putting up the buildings, but it did not want to be involved in the risks because that is not British capitalism.
From the hon. Member for Crosby we heard about the example of the Merseyside development corporation. I hope that he is not part of the Tebbit tendency which believes that when one loses local elections one should abolish those councils or reduce their powers, because some of the things he said are very worrying. There have been many suggestions, not from the hon. Member for Crosby but from those senior to him who have votes on the Cabinet Committees, that local authorities should be bypassed in the need to regenerate inner cities. I hope that the Minister mentions that in his reply.
I applaud the work of the Merseyside development corporation. It is in a different category from that of the London Docklands development corporation. It works well with local authorities. Development corporations have a role, but local authorities have the key role. Professor Noel Boaden, a member of Merseyside development corporation, was quoted in The Guardian on 13 December as saying that such bodies as development corporations
are successful only when tackling specific projects like riverside renewal.
He said that their role has to be limited. I am glad that the hon. Member for Crosby accepts that. The role of development corporations is not to replace the role of local authorities but to supplement it.
What we need to see from this Government—I do not think that we will—is a total shift in the emphasis of policy to recognise the importance of the region and the importance of the industrial heartland of this country to the wealth of the rest of the country, including, above all, the City of London. London is and always will be a leech and parasite on the rest of the nation. Our wealth depends on manufacturing.
We need a change in regional and industrial assistance. The Government have massacred such assistance. That is reflected in the fact that relative unemployment figures are much worse between the regions than they were seven years ago. We need a regional voice. At least the Labour party is now calling for regional councils for areas such as the north-west so that the regions can have a vibrant voice.
We need a major change in the Government's public expenditure priorities. At the weekend we heard of the now significant split inside the Cabinet between those who want to give people back their own money by way of tax cuts and those who want to give it back by way of jobs through public spending. I hope that the Minister will say that he is on the side of the Biffen tendency when he replies. If the Government were to put money and real resources into the north-west and our inner cities, it would benefit not only those areas but the people of those areas and at last the jobless total would start to go down rather than up.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I am conscious of the fact that I am the only Member to speak who does not come from the north-west. I begin by recognising that the scale of the problem is very different from that in the area of London that I represent. Having said that, I find it strange that none of the Labour Members representing Liverpool, where the problems of the north-west are at their most acute, spoke in or appeared during the debate.
I begin by complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) for the measured and eloquent way in which he moved the motion. I was impressed by the arguments he deployed about the need to make a stitch in time to save higher expenditure later. He said that the problems he described had not arisen overnight and that they would take some time to solve. The key theme of his speech was the recognition that if we are to make faster progress we must harness the energy and dynamism of the private sector in a number of areas, not least in housing. He showed quite forcefully that investment through the construction industry was one of the most effective ways of reducing unemployment in the north-west, as anywhere else. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that, due to the eloquence with which he moved his motion, the Government are happy to accept it. I shall deal with many of the points he made.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others referred to the local election results in the north-west last Thursday. My reaction to the taunts of the Labour party is to quote from what the chief of police said in the final act of "The Pirates of Penzance":
To gain a brief advantage you've contrived, but your proud triumph will not be long-lived.

Mr. Eastham: Can the Minister sing it?

Sir George Young: If provoked, I could sing not only that but the rest of "The Pirates of Penzance".
However, there is a note of caution for Opposition Members in the election results. A number of Labour-controlled authorities in the north-west may either adopt or continue to implement policies which will deeply embarrass the Opposition Front Bench and give a totally different flavour from that currently being advertised on television.
I see from today's edition of the Daily Telegraph that the Opposition are already aware of that risk. The article states:
Mr. Kinnock, Labour leader, and Dr. John Cunningham, Labour Environment spokesman, have told the new groups they will not back confrontation with the Government which could lead to illegality.
I also notice that some of the results were not an undisguised triumph for the alliance. In Rochdale, which I imagine would be a Liberal stronghold, there was a net loss of two seats, and the alliance lost its only representative in Rossendale.
Last week's results were disappointing. I am sorry to see some good councillors and administrations lose office through no fault of their own. For us, it has to be a time of analysis, reflection and teamwork.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the result in Sefton, which he failed to mention. It puts me in a difficulty. I can no longer attack Sefton council with the same regularity as in the past because the Conservatives have lost overall control. Also, although many of my Liverpool colleagues are not here, I am here from Bootle as secretary of the Merseyside group of Labour Members of Parliament, and I am listening attentively to the debate.

Sir George Young: I am not sure that the presence of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) compensates for the absence of the five Labour Members of Parliament from Liverpool. It is not helped by the fact that the hon. Gentleman arrived within the last five or 10 minutes.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said that the north-west has lost most from the recession. It follows from that that it has most to gain from the recovery in the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) put the problem in perspective, and rightly reminded the House that much of the poorly constructed housing in the north-west was built by the public sector. For that reason, he cautioned us against over-reliance on the public sector in future.

Mr. Eastham: Will the Minister give way?

Sir George Young: I shall not give way because I must try to make progress.

Mr. Eastham: rose—;

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman spoke for about 22 minutes. I must try to deal with the debate.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) implied that the Government were cutting back on home insulation grants. The fact is that expenditure has been less to avoid allocating funds that are not used. We made it clear when we allocated the money at the beginning of the year that supplementary resources are available, and local authorities that find that their allocation is used up can bid for extra resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) made a powerful case on housing. I am aware of his constituency's needs. He has been good enough to bring delegations on at least one occasion. He mentioned


the neighbourhood revitalisation scheme. I had a positive meeting with the National Home Improvement Council last week, which sponsors the NRS. I was interested to learn that it is anxious to expand the scheme. I hope that my Department will be able to help. I shall certainly bring to its attention the strong claim of my hon. Friend's area if the scheme is expanded.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) mentioned education, as did some other hon. Members. Of course, the Government take seriously the reports from Her Majesty's inspectors and others about the repair of some school buildings, which often have suffered from years of neglect. The responsibility for repair and maintenance lies with the education authorities, but our expenditure plans have allowed a 13 per cent. increase in real terms between 1981–82 and 1984–85 for school repairs and maintenance.
Some hon. Members mentioned recent job losses and redundancies in the region. It would have balanced the picture if they had mentioned some of the good news. For example, Philips Electrical and Du Pont announced an investment of £4 million in compact disc production at the Mallard plant in Blackburn by the end of the year. There will be some 30,000 sq. ft. of plant and about 150 people will be employed. There has been major investment by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence in the north-west through the defence programme. One has to put that in perspective and not just look at the closures. One also has to look at the jobs that are being created.
I was interested to see that the vacancies notified to jobcentres in the north-west in March 1986 were more than 10 per cent. up on the same month a year ago. I am sure that the whole House will agree that that is a trend in the right direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) gave a robust exposition of the case for free enterprise and self-help, which we all greatly enjoyed. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) mentioned Trafford park, as did some other hon. Members. I hope to say a word about that in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) mentioned the revival of the private sector house building industry. Through our policy to bring down inflation and mortgage rates, the private sector has confidence that it did not have throughout the 1970s. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) rightly mentioned some of the constraints on central Government and asked us to take note of the regional consequences of national decisions. Of course, we must do that.
In addition to my hon. Friends who spoke, I was pleased to see in their places my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Dover), for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), for Lancaster (Mrs Kellett-Bowman), for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt).
At the beginning of his remarks, the hon. Member for Blackburn contrasted capital allocations for housing in the last year of his Administration with some more recent ones of ours. He left out capital receipts. Under the Labour Administration, there were not many capital receipts because there was no right to buy. If one is to look at the total picture, it is slightly more accurate to add to the allocations the accumulated capital receipts on which local

authorities can draw. I was slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman, whom I had always thought to be one of the more sensible members of the Labour party, refer to the City as a leech and a parasite. It generates a substantial amount of invisible earnings for this country, which enables us to import food and other raw materials. It is one of the areas where we can compete effectively with Europe, north America and other parts of the world. To decry the City of London in those terms is short-sighted and not in this country's interests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby was rightly concerned to ensure that our infrastructure is maintained and renewed so that it is healthy and capable of supporting a growing economy. The Government have been doing that. Our public sector capital spending record is good. Equally important, it has been achieved alongside policies that have been responsible for turning round the economy. The country is now entering its sixth successive year of growth, the longest period since the 1973 oil price rise. Therefore, we have maintained public sector investment in infrastructure and established a firm base of economic growth. That has to be the right long-term route to improved infrastructure and lasting jobs.
One or two hon. Members mentioned motorways. The north-west is well served by trunk road and motorway networks compared with the south-east. It has over 300 miles of motorways in use with more under construction or planned. Of the schemes that are planned, several are bypasses of towns and villages, reflecting the Government's policy of encouraging heavy traffic away from residential areas.
One or two hon. Members mentioned the water authorities. There was a sustained decline in capital investment in the region over several years to a low of £67 million in 1978–79. That decline has been brought to an end and turned round with a sustained year-on-year increase in capital expenditure in the north-west. In the current financial year it is £163 million. It has been a long haul to make up lost ground, but good progress is being made.
Some hon. Members mentioned the Health Service. Capital expenditure in the two regions has increased in real terms since we came to office. Since April 1979, six major schemes have been started on site in the two regions—each worth over £5 million—at Salford, Oldham, Tameside, Halton, Macclesfield and Southport. A further 10 schemes in the £2 million to £5 million range were also started during that period.
Private sector housing starts in the north-west last year were over 10 per cent. up on the previous year—double the national increase of 5 per cent. The level of expenditure on housing repair and maintenance in the north-west last year was also running ahead of the national trend. Spending was more than 15 per cent. up in Great Britain on the 1981 level.
Several hon. Members mentioned improvement grants. The number of improvement grants paid to private owners and tenants in the north-west last year were down on the 1983 and 1984 record level, but they were still higher than in any year between 1975 and 1982.
Of course, there are always demands for higher investment, particularly in parts of the country that have undergone sustained periods of underinvestment. I believe that our record on public expenditure in the north-west reflects the Government's good record on public expenditure in the country as a whole. Nationally, capital


spending on national roads has increased in real terms by about one quarter since 1978–79 and provision for capital maintenance has also gone up. Capital expenditure on the Health Service is now some 30 per cent. up on 1978–79.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby mentioned inner city policy. The Government have used a variety of initiatives to make progress. Finance for the urban programme has risen from £93 million in 1978–79 to its present figure of almost £300 million. Derelict land grant has risen from £21 million in 1978–79 to more than £80 million now. The urban development grant receives £85 million from public expenditure and has levered £366 million from the private sector. The urban development corporation receives £360 million worth of public money leading to more than £1 billion of private sector investment in the London Docklands development corporation area alone. Some 25 enterprise zones have been designated, and 1,000 firms are providing 10,000 jobs, half of which are new jobs.
The Government have also introduced the land register. Areas of land registered since 1980 total 148,000 acres and the total area removed to date is 38,000 acres.
On the key theme of partnership, the Government have tried to use public sector money to tempt in the private sector. On many of the schemes that I have outlined we have had gearing ratios as high as 5:1—£1 of taxpayers' money invested in a scheme bringing in £5 from the private sector. That is helping to generate confidence in areas and represents an extremely effective use of taxpayers' money. There are several good examples of that in the north-west.
For example, in the city of Salford, unpopular council flats on Regent road were sold to Barratts and were successfully refurbished for sale. Some 280 flats at Ladywell have recently been sold for improvement and sale, and the city council has other proposals which have been submitted to my Department under the urban housing renewal unit set up last year.
There have been other partnership schemes, again with Barratts, for a major transformation of an unpopular inner city council estate of 1,000 flats and maisonettes. The Government are considering a number of bids under the urban housing renewal unit, although in the case of one such bid from Bolton—that for Wilkinson gardens—I have already announced that the proposals have been approved. That is a £790,000 scheme to revitalise parts of a rundown housing estate with a package of measures put together by Bolton borough council in collaboration with my Department. I am delighted that councils in Salford and Bolton have taken a pragmatic approach to the role which the private sector can play in upgrading the nation's housing stock.
Another Labour authority, the city of Manchester, has, unfortunately, been slower to appreciate the benefits of that approach. On 11 December last year, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction wrote to that council proposing a feasibility study to see how, in consultation with tenants, private developers could contribute to the resolution of physical and social problems on the council's 5,000-dwelling Hulme estate. Although we have undertaken to finance this study, the council has so far failed to respond positively to our proposals. I am surprised and disappointed at that—as I am sure others are—because the council could have seized the opportunity not just to attract extra finance into that problematical area of inner city housing, but to take

advantage of the flair and imagination which private developers have demonstrated in other nearby places, often with Labour authorities.

Mr. Alton: The Minister has made an important point. How would he enhance the rights of tenants to take the initiative over and above a local authority which decides mindlessly to pull down housing that could be improved if such partnership schemes were entered into: Some authorities do not seem to be prepared to explore such opportunities.

Sir George Young: The Housing and Planning Bill, which is in another place and which has been through this House, has made improved provision for tenant cooperatives. The Government accepted an amendment on Report which gave more rights than had hitherto been the case to tenants to allow them to take the initiative over the management of estates. I should be surprised if a local authority decided to proceed with the demolition of an estate or block of flats against the express wishes of the tenants. That would be bad politics and bad economics.
Several hon. Members have mentioned Trafford park, in Manchester. As hon. Members have said, Trafford park was a major industrial estate set up in the 1890s at the head of the Manchester Ship canal. A number of major companies with premises in the park have grouped together as the Trafford park major manufacturers group. They have persuaded the borough council, the Department of Trade and Industry and my Department to put in £25,000 each to fund the Trafford park investment strategy. That will be carried out by outside consultants and is designed to regenerate the area using public sector money to lever out substantial sums of private sector finance. We expect the final report later this month.
The Government's major successes in controlling inflation and creating a climate in which economic growth has not only been nurtured but sustained for the sixth successive year provide an excellent springboard for the future of the country as a whole and for the north-west region. In this, the Government have a clear role in providing the kind of infrastructure to which we attach such importance. Although the Government have initiated and encouraged collaboration between the public and private sectors, we attach great importance to the provision of infrastructure where the public sector is the main provider.
I am greatly heartened by the response of the private sector which I have illustrated with a few examples this evening.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that at its northern conference last month the Institute of Directors called strongly for the establishment of a north-west development corporation? Will he support such an excellent and much needed initiative?

Sir George Young: Of course the Government will consider such an initiative, but that may fall to my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry.
As I have said, there is imaginative interest from the private sector in some of the issues that we have discussed. That is shown by the construction industry and by other industries and institutions. The propects for the north-west are bright with the prospect of more jobs and greater prosperity.

Mr. Thornton: We have had a wide-ranging debate, although on several occasions hon. Members have strayed from the subject of the motion, but we are used to that in debates about the north-west.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for my absence from the Chamber during part of his speech. I am sure that he will understand the reasons for my absence. I would like to clarify two of the hon. Gentleman's points. I was not suggesting that the private sector should have the sole role. I believe that there should be a partnership arrangement between the private sector and the public sector at local and national levels. These elements are all important, and one element cannot be taken from the equation if it is to be a success.
The hon. Member for Blackburn expressed some anxiety about my statement about the possibility of local authority powers being bypassed. I hope that the record will show that I was not being critical of all local authorities. I suggested that there are some local authorities which, by their actions, have shown that they are incapable or unwilling—it must be for the individual to judge which—to tackle some of the problems. Perhaps the establishment of development corporations and an extension of their role will be a way of dealing with these critical issues. I believe that there should be a specific role and not a general role. I was not seeking a general usurping of local authority powers. Local authorities are uniquely placed to achieve many improvements in the development of the infrastructure in the north-west. They should play their part and take the responsibility that is clearly theirs.
Several hon. Members have referred to the north-south debate, or divide. It is clear that there is a divide opening

up. The purpose of this debate is to draw attention to ways of bridging that divide. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) that we should encourage private sector development wherever possible. We want to stand on our own feet and we do not expect the rest of the country to bail us out. We must recognise that the decline in the north-west, which has had a major impact on infrastructure, is part of the structural decline of the basic industry of the country. The north-west has not brought this suffering on itself and no Government, Labour or Conservative, has been able to reverse the decline. However, all Governments must recognise that the decline must be reversed. If we can be given the investment, both public and private, which can stimulate an improvement in the infrastructure in the north-west, we shall be able to attract investment from which jobs will flow.
The motion proposes the adoption of a series of measures which I cannot believe anyone can oppose. It offers things that the Government want and things that the people want. The construction industry is ready, willing and able to take its part. We need to get the partnership going. Let us get on with the job, for we have no more time to lose.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, concerned at the long-term implications for public expenditure of the condition of much of the national housing stock and infrastructure, particularly in the North West region, urges Her Majesty's Government to open immediate negotiations with the construction industry with a view to encouraging greater private sector financing of inner city housing and infrastructure projects and a more effective utilisation of existing monies which Her Majesty's Government have made available through a variety of programmes designed to deal with both urban renewal and job creation.

Adjournment (Spring)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 23rd May, do adjourn until Tuesday 3rd June; and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 23rd May until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

7 pm

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I begin this spring Adjournment debate by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on injecting an extra dimension of excitement, mystery and suspense into what might otherwise be a traditional and somewhat moribund debate. I refer to my right hon. Friend's broadcast on London Weekend Television yesterday, which some have seen as a titillating trailer to our proceedings this evening, of which his reply will be the main feature.
My only comment on my right hon. Friend's broadcast is that it reminded me of the ambiguous pronoucements of the oracle of Delphi. The House will recall that the oracle's most famous piece of advice was "Stick to your wooden walls." Half the citizens of Athens interpreted that as a recommendation to hunker down in their wooden bunkers while the other half went fleeing to their wooden-hulled ships. I suspect that the Tory party, like the ancient Athenians, will be equally divided in its reaction to our newest oracle's pronouncement. However, my right hon. Friend always has the gift of being stimulating.
There was one passage in my right hon. Friend's speech which riveted my attention and which I should like to take as my text, as it is said in ecclesiastical circles, for my remarks this evening. The words of my right hon. Friend which caught my attention were:
There is no harm for the Tory party from time to time to remember that the language and the outlook of conservation is as valid in its traditions as reform and radicalism.
That is an admirable sentiment and one which is being implemented to some extent by the Government. The outlook of conservation is definitely being applied gradually to modern farming and the efforts of the green tendency are winning the argument against those who want ever-increasing production of higher and higher grain mountains.
I suggest, too, in the light of recent events, that the language of conservation should be applied to our nuclear energy programme. In spite of the excellent safety record of our nuclear industry, it is insensitive to declare that we shall embark on a massive extension of nuclear power in the 1990s. We know that 25 per cent. of our national energy needs will come from nuclear power once the present power stations which are now in use or under construction are on stream. We should be sensitive to the public's understandable horror of the consequences of nuclear accidents. However remote the possibility of nuclear accidents may be, some residue of fear will remain. It is time to pause and let the language and outlook of conservation have its head in nuclear matters.
My right hon. Friend will not be entirely surprised to learn that my principal argument this evening is that the language and outlook of conservation should be applied to the Channel tunnel project. The Channel tunnel is fast becoming an albatross around the Government's neck. It is not necessary to be an Ancient Mariner to know that the Bill is already marooned on procedural difficulties. Many people in Kent are incensed at the injustice that has been

done to them by the Government's headlong rush to support the big business consortium's interests at the expense of the wider public interest and the many private interests, businesses and individuals that will be affected. The punters in the City are nervously putting their hands back into their pockets because the hot favourite looks more and more like a financial loser as the true figures come out and the Bill faces death by several hundred amendments and several thousand petitions.
Let me return for a moment to the language and outlook of conservation on the Channel tunnel. After all, that was the language used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport when he first introduced the project. My right hon. Friend, stressing the Government's neutrality and willingness to see fair play, said:
I do not want hon. Member to think that we have pre-judged the issues. When they have had time to study the guidelines, they will recognise my concern to ensure that there is adequate public consultation, that environmental, social and employment impacts are fully appreciated and that the financial conditions are fully met."—[Official Report, 2 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1078.]
Those words have not been met by the facts that have followed them.
There was an understandable degree of doubt whether we should have a public inquiry on this issue. I would have welcomed a shortened form of public inquiry of the sort envisaged by the late Anthony Crosland when he had the stewardship of an earlier Channel tunnel project. Be that as it may, the Government decided upon the hybrid Bill procedure, and some of the hearings will be held locally as a way of carrying out public consultations. The Government gave an undertaking to follow the precedent of the Channel Tunnel Bill 1974 in the same way.
In the debate on 9 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said:
If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, it will be committed to a Select Committee to hear and consider petitions. The Bill will already have been advertised; anyone who has an objection to it will have an opportunity to petition against it and, subject to his petition being accepted by the Committee, he will appear and present his case to the Select Committee. Subject: to the rulings of the Select Committee, I would expect that those eligible would include individuals whose private interests are affected—those representing local trades, businesses and other local interests which may be adversely affected, those representing amenity, ecology, educational and recreational interests who believe that their interests are adversely affected to a material degree, and local authorities in any affected areas.
My right hon. Friend added:
This is a substantial and thorough procedure which ensures that the public have the widest oportunity to make representations as petitioners to the two Select Committees."—[Official Report, 9 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 645.]
My purpose in intervening in this debate is to press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I hope, to ensure that the Government line up to the words of the Secretary of State. So far public consultation on this issue has been negligible to the point of being almost insulting. We know that 20,000 pages of documents were assessed in fewer than 35 working days by civil servants working in secret. There was excessive secrecy surrounding the entire project. Only the Channel Tunnel Group, or Eurochannel, as we must learn to call it, has had its figures published. The Government's own figures have not been published. As a result, the White Paper is full of statistical garbage. For example, paragraph 42 deals with the effect on employment in Kent. It contains wildly optimistic figures, which are in complete contradiction to all the


other figures that are available from other sources. In my constituency, Ramsgate—Britain's second largest Channel port—is completely ignored in the White Paper. The jobs that will be lost there are avoided by selectively picking out the Channel ports of Dover and Folkestone, which are somehow the subject of more optimistic forecasts than the other Channel ports.
The most most worrying feature of all is that the Government, through their parliamentary agent, published a draft timetable of the proceedings on the Bill. It stated that the Select Committee would begin its work on 17 June and finish its hearings on 24 July. That timetable, which was circulated by the Government to interested parties in Kent, was greeted with consternation. At that point, the Standing Orders Committee was asked to grant a dispensation to the Government for violating Standing Orders.
It is no part of my case to argue that the Standing Orders Committee's decision should be pre-judged. That is a matter for the Committee. I am saying that the Government should step in at an early stage to ensure that fair play is seen to take place. It would be a travesty of justice if the Select Committee's proceedings were to be shorter than those which normally take place in considering any other private Bill. It would be a travesty if the proceedings were to be shorter than those envisaged for the previous Channel Tunnel Bill. The idea that the measure can be railroaded through in a short time is inimical to the traditions of fair play in the passage of private Bills, and I see no reason why an exception should be made in this instance.
The time has come for the wiser heads in the Government, among whom I now number my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who espouses the language and outlook of conservation, to remember the famous dictum of a great Conservative, Viscount Falkland, who said:
When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.
I suggest that that rubric should be applied to the Channel tunnel project.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Before we adjourn for the Whitsun recess, I should like to draw the House's attention to the announcement by British Rail on 22 February, which outlined proposals for a major reorganisation of freight services throughout south Wales.
It would be a misnomer to call the proposals a reorganisation. It is a decimation of the service—Serpel in disguise. Matters are even more disturbing because the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Transport seem to be so little concerned about the drastic proposals. On 26 March, we had a full day's debate on transport infrastructure in Wales in the Welsh Grand Committee, during which the Secretary of State for Wales failed even to mention this important issue until I drew it to his attention. Likewise, during the debate on the Floor of the House on transport on 22 April, the Secretary of State for Transport, despite fulsome praise for Sir Robert Reid, the chairman of BR, did not mention BR's drastic proposals for south Wales, which would have a catastrophic effect on freight services there. I should like to draw attention to the proposed closure of the Severn

tunnel junction. More than 400 jobs would be lost there but it has been suggested that more then 200 employees could be found alternative work elsewhere. Well informed reports cast doubt on that assessment. It is the biggest marshalling facility in the western region, which serves south Wales and the west country. Suggesting the closure of such a valuable facility calls into question whether BR wants to remain in the freight business. The proposals are the language of defeatism. If implemented, they would continue the spiral of decline from which our rail network has suffered for so long.
Road transport is now the main means of conveying goods and people. At times, that leads to environmental problems. There is nothing more nauseating to me than seeing large coal lorries trudging up and down our south Wales valleys. Such bulk traffic rightly belongs to rail. Much of the coal from the Gwent pits for the Central Electricity Generating Board's Uskmouth power station is now transported by road. Before the miners' strike, almost all of it went by rail. Many road vehicles transport coal from the Welsh pits to the CEGB's power station in England, mainly Didcot via the M4. That can only harm the image of road haulage. It will certainly increase the power and influence of the environmental lobby.
I should also like to draw attention to an accident that was recently reported in the press. A young woman was killed in north Wales by a 91b piece of metal casing from a cat's eye which smashed through the windscreen of her car. Surveyors in south Wales have recently spotted scores of studs that need replacing, having been dislodged by coal lorries. A full investigation and the utmost vigilance are required.
Those examples show how unwise it is to convey large quantities of coal by road. It has been alleged that this is a means of penalising railmen for supporting the miners in the recent struggle. If so, it is very short-sighted. The sooner coal is put back on rail, the better, but if that were likely, BR would not be speculating about closing such an important facility as the Severn tunnel junction.
Over the years, there have been many twists and turns in BR's policy on siting installations. Current proposals fly in the face of earlier decisions. A few years ago, BR made a song and dance about closing the Ebbw bridge facility at Newport in my constituency. It said that it would concentrate at Severn tunnel junction. Now the movement is in the opposite direction. Serious environmental problems are assocated with the proposal to transfer to the east Usk depot in Newport. BR will have to handle many dangerous goods and the public will be apprehensive about that happening in the heart of a heavily populated area.
There have been doubts about the efficiency of BR's freight service. For months before the announcement of reorganisation, local railmen, through their trade union representatives, drew my attention to the shortage of wagons. I have raised the matter with the Secretary of State for Transport and with the chairman of BR. I am sorry to say that the replies have not allayed the anxieties of BR employees.
As for the effect on the local community of closing the Severn tunnel junction, it should be remembered that villages such as Rogiet, Undy, Magor and the small town of Caldicot have grown up with the railway industry. Mr. W. C. Winter, the clerk to Rogiet community council, wrote to me on 24 March saying that the proposals


will affect fifty seven homes in our small community either with husbands or sons—and in some families both—having to find work in an area without much prospect of any.
Their prospects would not be good, to say the least. The heavily Conservative-controlled Monmouth district council told me on 15 April that it had written in the strongest possible terms to the chairman of BR opposing the proposals. It said that it had drawn attention to the effect on local employment and expressed its anxiety about the detrimental effect of such a closure on rail freight operations in south Wales.
Newport borough council wrote to the chairman of BR on 23 April drawing attention to local efforts to attract new enterprises by emphasising communications and freight movement facilities, of which the Severn tunnel junction is a major part. The council believes that the Severn tunnel junction, with its large acreage in open country, could play a major part in development work on the Channel tunnel.
Gwent county council has taken a similar stand, and has also drawn attention to the nearby century-old Severn tunnel. From a safety standpoint it considers that rail operations at Severn tunnel junction must continue, particularly in order to deal with a major tragedy in the tunnel.
I urge the Leader of the House to prevail upon the Secretary of State for Transport to discuss these matters with the chairman of British Rail at the earliest possible opportunity. Likewise, the British Rail management would he wise to get around the table with the trade unions involved to devise a strategy to win back freight traffic for rail. But first British Rail should discard the absurd proposals announced on 22 February.

Mr. Ian Crow: Thursday of this week marks the six-month anniversary of the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement, and although the House had a two-day debate on the subject on 26 and 27 November last year, there has been no opportunity for a debate on Northern Ireland since then. I therefore take this opportunity to reflect on the experience of the first six months of the agreement and to put some questions to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
It was in no way surprising that this House, with a very large majority in favour of the Anglo-Irish agreement, joined with the Government, as I did, in seeking peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. The first six months since the signing of the agreement have not been auspicious. In fashioning the agreement the Government's view that was of prime importance was the fact that it should be acceptable to the minority in Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that it was broadly acceptable to the minority.
However, the Government overlooked the extent to which the Anglo-Irish agreement was massively unacceptable to the majority in Northern Ireland. I remind my right hon. Friend of the provisions of the Scotland Act and Wales Act 1978. He will remember that Parliament then agreed that Scotland and Wales should be governed differently from the way in which they had been governed in the past. But the Government of the day, as well as this House and another place, decided that before Scotland and Wales were to be governed differently, the approval of this House and another place was not all that was necessary. It was also judged that the opinion of those directly

affected—those who live in Scotland an Wales—should be sought, and referendums were held in both Scotland and Wales.
A high test of acceptability was set by Parliament. It was whether 40 per cent. of the electorate—not of those voting—gave their assent to being governed in a different way. But the wise precedent set in the Scotland and Wales Acts was not followed in the case of Northern Ireland. I think that even my right hon. Friend will have no doubt that, had that precedent been followed in Northern Ireland, the result among the electrate would have been nowhere near 40 per cent. In fashioning the Anglo-Irish agreement, I believe that the Government made a major error by ignoring the wishes of the majority and concentrating only on the perceived desire of the minority.
It is not possible to govern one part of this kingdom differently from the way in which it has been governed before, and differently from the way in which we govern the rest of the kingdom, save with the consent of the majority in that part of the kingdom that is to be governed differently.
When they presented the Anglo-Irish agreement to the House, the Government claimed that it was a great step forward because for the first time the Government of the Irish Republic had acknowledged that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland, save with the consent of a majority of people in Northern Ireland. But there has been a change in status by the fashioning of this agreement. No one would argue that since 15 November Northern Ireland has been governed in the same way as it had been previously. Therefore, a change in status has taken place—not as part of Her Majesty's dominions but in the sense that Northern Ireland is governed differently.
That is only a minor part of the argument that I am now developing. It is not correct to say, as has been said from the Opposition Front Bench, that it was novel for the Government of the Irish Republic to acknowledge that there could be no change in status, save with the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, is in the Chamber and will disagree with me if I have got it wrong. But it will be remembered that the communiqué issued after the Sunningdale conference stated specifically and in the most solemn terms that the Government of the Irish Republic acknowledged that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland, save with the consent of the majority. The communiqué also recorded the fact that the text of that undertaking from the Government of the Irish Republic would be registered at the United Nations, in exactly the same way as it was agreed that the Anglo-Irish agreement should be registered at the United Nations.
These are dangerous times in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have wisely said that they will operate the Anglo-Irish agreement sensitively. I wish to make four specific suggestions as to how the agreement can be operated with greater sensitivity.
First, it is quite unnecessary for the secretariat that staffs the intergovernmental conference to be situated in Belfast. The secretariat that is now housed in the Province has to be guarded. In a way, it is a fortress. It would be much more sensible to move it from Belfast to London.
Secondly, it is not necessary, and there is no such provision in the Anglo-Irish agreement, for meetings of the intergovernmental conference at ministerial level to be held in Belfast. I welcome the fact that last week's meeting—the fifth—was held in London. That was a step forward. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to say that it is intended that future meetings should be held in London rather than in Belfast.
Thirdly, article 3 of the agreement states that there shall be
Regular and frequent Ministerial meetings".
Mercifully, there is no definition of either "regular" or "frequent". It could be said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is a regular and frequent appearer on television, but that might mean once every three months, once every six months, once every nine months or even weekly. I welcome the fact that there is no such definition in the agreement. However, a somewhat extended definition of "regular and frequent" would be to the advantage of the situation in Northern Ireland, particularly at this time.
My fourth suggestion relates to the meetings of the intergovernmental conference. In the past, the chief of police of the Republic and the Chief Constable of the RUC have been present at those meetings. There is every reason to welcome the closest possible co-operation in the struggle against terrorism between both parts of the island of Ireland, and between the chief of police of the Garda and the Chief Constable of the RUC. However, it is unnecessary for those meetings to take place within the framework of the intergovernmental conference. Indeed, it would be much more desirable and it would in no way diminish the efficiency of those meetings if the two chiefs of police met separately and not within the framework of the intergovernmental conference.
As I have said before, I hope that Unionist Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will take their place in the House and, in the full sense, in the proceedings of Parliament. In the months ahead, I hope that the Government will understand—they understand this barely—how deep is the resentment at the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement on the part of the great majority of people of Northern Ireland. The degree of hostility and resentment to the agreement six months after it was signed is no less than it was on 15 November 1985. I hope that the Government will show a deeper understanding of the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland, and I welcome this opportunity of putting those thoughts to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I listened to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) with care, and I can agree enthusiastically with his plea that Unionist Members rejoin us in the House to play their full part in representing that unhappy and difficult Province.
I wish to draw attention to the question of safety in our older Magnox nuclear power stations, on which we must have assurances before the House goes into recess. I do so in the light of the Chernobyl disaster, but not as a result of it. The issue is not new to me, but one which I have been pursuing with the Central Electricity Generating Board, the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Government during the past 10 months—long before the Chernobyl

disaster and the string of three accidents at Hinkley Point close to my constituency, one of which resulted in anti-radiation pills being issued in Britain for only the second time.
Nevertheless, it is curious to see the reactions to the Chernobyl disaster. The Government claim that the public is over-reacting, whereas the public largely sees the Government as complacent in the face of a tragedy of which the reality was terrible enough, bin of which the potential was apocalyptic.
I can see the need not to encourage over-reaction, but I have more sympathy with the public on this matter than with the Government. I have come to believe that both the Government and the nuclear industry have shown a degree of complacency over safety in our older Magnox power stations which is extremely worrying.
It is true that British nuclear power stations are much safer than their Soviet equivalents of the same age, but are they safe enough? It is true that our system is much more open, thank goodness, than the Soviet system, but is it sufficiently open in the light of the risks that we face?
We should recognise that there are many similarities between our older Magnox power stations and the Chernobyl reactor. Our seven Magnox stations, which have a total of 18 reactors, are moderated by a graphite core of the same type as that which caught fire with such devastating effects at Chernobyl. A minor leak in a Magnox reactor can generate hydrogen, which is thought to be the cause of the Chernobyl explosion. Many believe that the hydrogen dispersal systems in our older Magnox reactors cannot cope with the large quantities of hydrogen caused by a malfunction, just as appears to have happened at Chernobyl.
It is a chilling thought that in some ways our Magnox reactors may be less safe than the Chernobyl reactor which, being a modern power station, incorporated a number of safety measures not even invented when our Magnox reactors were constructed. Contrary to the misinformation cleverly put about, our Magnox stations have no secondary containment systems, whereas the Chernobyl station had two. Major loops in the radioactive gas coolant systems of our Magnox stations are exposed outside the reactor vessel, whereas all the circuits at Chernobyl were encased inside the containment system. Our Magnox stations have suffered considerably from bellows problems, but no such thing has occurred at Chernobyl. Most important, the design of the circuits which control the Magnox reactor are such that the primary and all emergency shutdown systems can be knocked out at the same time in certain circumstances, for example, if there is a breach in the containment vessel, such as occurred at Chernobyl. In those circumstances, a reactor would be left without instrumentation or a positive means of control in an emergency.
In addition, Magnox stations have suffered from corrosion, sufficiently worrying for the nuclear installations inspectorate to derate the reactors by 17 per cent. some 15 years ago. The corrosion continues. More recently I have been informed that some of the fuel-loading standpipes in our Magnox stations are buckling to such an extent that it is proving difficult to get fuel rods in and out. Apparently, no one yet knows the precise reason for that.
There is a difference of opinion about whether Chernobyl, one of the Soviet Union's most modern power stations, would receive a licence to operate in Britain.


Some say that it would, others say that it would not, and I believe that it would not. However, there is no doubt about the fact that our older Magnox stations would not be licensed to operate in Britain, were they to be considered for that today.
Chernobyl should also have shattered another of our comfortable illusions—that the scale of a nuclear accident will be relatively limited. The tragedy in the Ukraine has shown that our previous calculations about disasters are woefully and, probably, dangerously inadequate. The most recent National Radiological Protection Board study, NRPB-R 137 of 1982, predicted that a Chernobyl-type disaster could lead to a gas cloud no more than 75 km in length. The Chernobyl gas cloud was 1,500 km long. The same report made it clear that a radioactive release under circumstances similar to Chernobyl would not last longer than 10 hours and, perhaps, as little as half an hour. The Chernobyl release of radioactivity continued for eight days. Despite those inaccurate predictions, the NRPB has calculated that a 1 per cent. core melt-down—about the same as at Chernobyl—would result in about 10 times as many deaths in Britain as in the USSR because of our much denser population. Given the scale of the tragedy at Chernobyl, that is a chilling thought. However, it should not be surprising, as the Severn valley contains both the highest concentration of nuclear power in the world and the homes of about 8 million people.
Our present emergency planning to cope with nuclear accidents as now revealed would be laughable were it not so potentially tragic. The effects of the Chernobyl disaster were felt more than 1,000 miles away, yet the emergency plan for Hinkley Point stops dead at 2·2 miles from the station perimeter fence. That is extraordinary, but true.
The inadequacies of our older Magnox power stations are not limited to what might happen but also to what is happening. NRPB figures show that, the four oldest stations, Berkeley, Bradwell, Hunterston and Hinkley Point, give the highest dose of radiation every day to their workers and the public. Indeed, Berkeley, the worst of the four, exposes members of the public who live closest to it to double the level of radiation suggested as the maximum by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
In the light of the facts, one would imagine that the Government would take seriously the 20-year safety reviews being conducted on the older Magnox stations. Unhappily, this does not appear to be the case. Not one of these reviews, which were regarded as essential by the original designers of Magnox, has yet been completed, despite the fact that some of the power stations concerned—for instance, Bradwell and Berkeley—reached the 20-year point four years ago. I am informed that there are simply not sufficient inspectors conducting the reviews to enable them to be done thoroughly and within a reasonably short time. These numbers have been depleted even further by the inquiry team that the Government have put together to look into Sellafield's problems.
I have written to the Secretary of State and to the nuclear installations inspectorate over the past months asking for a sign of when the reviews will be completed, but no answer has been forthcoming. Surely, in the light of the Chernobyl tragedy, the Government must now put some emphasis behind these reviews and at least give a target date by which they should be completed.
Worse than that, repeated questions to the Secretary of State asking him to publish the details and results of these reviews when they are known have also been met with refusals. How can we criticise the Soviet Union for secrecy when the result of these essential reviews are also to be kept secret? I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the Secretary of State for Energy will give an undertaking to the House before the recess that these details will be published as soon as they are known. If he will not do this, will he at least explain why there reeds to be secrecy over such an important matter?
As important as secrecy, however, are the standards by which we shall judge the safety of our older power stations. One would imagine that, in the light of Chernobyl, safety should be judged exclusively on what is necessary. Unhappily, this is far from the case. It appears that only that which is deemed by the CEGB—not the nuclear installations inspectorate—to be credible, practical and not too costly will be done.
In a letter to me of 28 February 1986, the chief inspector of the NII said:
It is only in situations where we wish the CEGB to do more than they consider to be reasonably practicable that the detailed costs and the likely benefits become a matter for discussion.
This means that the safety standards that we are applying are governed not by what is necessary but by what is not too expensive. Do the Government still find that to be an acceptable standard, after Chernobyl? Later in the same letter in a response to a question from me about why we did not modify our older power stations in the light of recent best practice, the chief inspector said that the extent to which safety
is achieved will be different for old plant and for new, as in other fields where improvements in safety measures, such as the introduction of seat belts in motor cars are phased in over a period.
Nuclear safety cannot be treated on the same basis as seat belts in cars.
In normal circumstances, engineering standards progress through design, modified by error. However, as Chernobyl has shown, in nuclear engineering there can be no error, so we must adopt a different practice. In nuclear engineering, safety must be an absolute standard, not a relative one. If we learn that new safety measures are required, they should be applied to existing power stations, not kept in the cupboard only to be incorporated when new power stations are built.
The bargain that nuclear power offers us is the kind of bargain offered to Faust, only we are asked to exchange unlimited power for the integrity not of our souls but of our environment. I have the gravest doubt whether mankind should accept that bargain and I am certain that we in Britain, uniquely, do not have to. Whatever one's views on that, no one doubts that the nuclear power stations that we have should he as safe as possible.
In the light of the terrible tragedy that has taken place in the Ukraine, I ask the Government now to do what I have been pressing them to do for months and recognise that our older Magnox stations, such as Hinkley Point, give us no cause for complacency. They must then put sufficient resources into the current safety reviews to do them quickly, establish a target point by which those reviews should be completed and publish the details when they are. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to ensure that the Secretary of State will give us those undertakings before the House goes into recess for the spring holiday.

Mr. Conal Gregory: Before the House adjourns for the spring recess, it is vital that we consider Government policy towards tourism, Britain's fastest growth sector in the economy. Last year, it attracted record numbers of overseas visitors, spending in excess of £5·4 billion. That has helped to create over 50,000 jobs. Tourism is not to be denigrated. Sad to say, we frequently hear from the Opposition Benches phrases such as "Jobs for ice cream salesmen" and "Mickey Mouse jobs." That is not entirely true of all the Opposition, because some right hon. and hon. Members participate in the all-party parliamentary tourism committee and see the benefits of such work. Service is not to be equated with servility. These are permanent jobs in an exciting sector.
I hold the elected offices of secretary of the all-party parliamentary tourism committee and vice chairman of the Conservative parliamentary tourism committee, and I declare my parliamentary consultancy for Consort hotels.
Naturally, terrorism has been a factor this year. Visitor cancellations from the United States have reached 40 per cent. in some quarters, but that is not surprising. Last summer's hijacking of a TWA flight in Athens, the seizure of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, the December deaths at airports in Rome and Vienna and the Libyan action this year have led to too many North Americans considering Britain in the same context. The media photographs of troops and armed police at Heathrow airport have not dispelled that opinion.
I acknowledge that there have been cancellations, but the United States market here needs to be put into perspective. The boom year for United States visitors was 1985. There were 3·3 million American visitors, exceeding all previous records. The strengthening of sterling against the United States dollar has been a significant factor. Long-term growth will continue despite these temporary setbacks. However, only 25 per cent. of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom originate in the United States of America. Most of the cancellations are from the group travel, youth and incentive markets. As some 80 per cent. of United States visitors travel independently, the scare stories may not materialise.
I praise the action taken by the British Tourist Authority. By participating in more than 100 radio and television interviews throughout the United States through the European Travel Commission, it will have dispelled some of the adverse criticism. Furthermore, the BTA's 18-city roadshow, travelling coast to coast, helps travel agents to appreciate our good security record. In addition, key travel trade leaders have been brought to Britain.
I particularly commend the regional initiatives. The Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board is helping to sell the north of England as a destination, using Manchester as a gateway. For example, there is the British Airways New York to Manchester service. The quality of welcome is assured.
Where is the Government initiative in all this? We need a Minister who will use his full abilities to market Britain. Immediately after the first adverse signs of terrorism, the Minister should have called together his opposite numbers in all the EEC states. Furthermore, we want a Minister who will bring together all parties to create a national tourism week. The goal is to increase awareness among consumers and Government officials at local, regional and national levels, of tourism's importance to the economic,

social and cultural welfare of the United Kingdom. This coming Sunday sees the launch of a similar programme in the United States of America. I hope that the Government will follow its activities and create a similar momentum here.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment has difficulty in devoting adequate time to this key sector of the economy. His other responsibilities include small businesses, which he promotes with skill. However, the time is overdue to give sole responsibility for tourism to one Minister. Does the industry deserve anything less?
There is still a lack of co-ordination between Departments. I have calculated for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that 13 Government Departments—a good baker's dozen—are involved. The two most glaring gaps are the lack of co-operation between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment, the sponsoring Department for tourism, and that between the Home Office and the Department of Employment on the reform of alcoholic drinks legislation.
On the former, there is still too wide a gulf on advising schoolchildren and youngsters who have recently left school on job opportunities in tourism. Last autumn, I visited two sixth forms in York schools. Not one hand went up when I asked what was meant by the service sector of the economy. When it was explained, none had considered tourism as a career. Yet, apart occasionally from the armed forces, what sector can offer such an opportunity in terms of responsibility, travel, prospects and emoluments? It is amazing that hoteliers need to seek personnel from outside the United Kingdom.
There is too little support for undergraduate and postgraduate management studies for tourism and the hotel and catering industry. A few companies have proved willing recently to finance students through their entire courses. I would single out for praise in this connection Trust House Forte, Grand Metropolitan, Crest Hotels and Swallow Hotels.
Moving to the adverse side, let us consider what assistance we give visitors at the Channel ports. We compare badly with the continentals. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has recently visited the Channel ports, he will have seen the dangers inherent in sloppy or loose Customs work.
There must be an exercise of discretion in some cases, because many tourists are senior citizens and are often not fit. Visitors must physically pick up their luggage at Dover and Folkestone, because there are few trolleys. I believe that Customs officers should come on board coaches and use some discretion.
Another factor could be the requirement by other EEC states for nonsensicial documents to try to make life as difficult as possible for tour managers. I cite the regulation that the French Government tourist office resuscitated in an endeavour to prohibit progress across France and limited it to persons who had taken the French examination—the national certificate for guide interpretation. That deals with history, but requires no practical experience as a tour manager.
Tour managers in Italy are required to buy an "attestazione" for about 10 from the Italian consulate in Britain before they can take groups to Italy. That is not a large sum of money. People of other nationalities are not hindered in bringing groups into the United Kingdom. It has been known for tour managers to be put in gaol if they


they do not have those documents. Only a Spanish national can commence a tour in Spain. There is no such limitation here. There are also difficulties in Greece, where tour managers can he challenged by local guides. I also cite the requirement that United Kingdom nationals visiting the United States must have a visa. There is no reciprocity. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make appropriate representations so that the four or five most secure European states can enjoy a similar move.
A crucial area of tourism, if we are to succeed in the long term, is classification and registration. There is a plethora of guides, from the RAC, AA, Michelin and Gault Millau to Egon Ronay, and now we have yet another scheme that appears to be supported partly by quangos financed by the British taxpayer. We have moved away from stars, which are well understood, to a system of crowns. Not content with sea horses in the Isle of Wight and hearts in the heart of England, we now have crowns. Everyone likes to be upgraded when they provide services above their ability. Now we find the nonsense of three-star hotels getting five-crown status. Therefore, the American traveller or—I hope increasingly—the Japanese traveller visiting his travel agent in Chicago or Tokyo will book accommodation, and the travel agent will equate a five-crown hotel in the north of Scotland or in mid-Wales with a five-crown hotel on Park lane. There will be no form of differentiation using that ill-conceived scheme. We are storing up a major problem for the future.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take on board my points. The spring Adjournment would be a fitting occasion for him to dwell upon the detailed and specific points that I have tried to bring to his attention.

Mr. David Winnick: It would be useful, before the House goes into recess, to discuss the implications of last Thursday's local election results. No one in the Government could deny that the Tory party received a massive rejection by the electorate. It was certainly not a vote of confidence, and clearly shows a tremendous desire for political change. That is not surprising. Mass unemployment continues and there is no sign that the measures, so modest as hardly to count, contained in the Budget will affect unemployment. More and more people understand that, by the time of the general election, the number of unemployed will be the same as now, and indeed is likely to be more. The continuing cuts in health and education help to explain the rejection of Tory candidates in last Thursday's poll.
Some Tory politicians blame the election results on the failure in presentation of policies. That was not the position. The policies themselves were being rejected. Most people are sick and tired of what is widely seen as Thatcherism, and sometimes that mood is explained in more vivid language on the doorstep. There is a wish—a deep-seated desire—for change, and all the advertising techniques of Saatchi and Saatchi are unlikely to change that mood before the general election.
Yesterday, the Leader of the House took the opportunity of a television programme to make some interesting observations on the state of the Conservative party—;

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Hear, hear.

Mr. Winnick: At least one Conservative Member says "Hear, hear".

Mr. Hickmet: I agree that my right hon. Friend's observations were interesting.

Mr. Winnick: It would be useful if the Leader of the House made some of those observations in the Chamber, not just on television. I do not criticise the right hon. Gentleman; he was right to appear on that programme.
If the Conservative party won the general election—a most unlikely event, I would think—the right hon. Gentleman believes that the Prime Minister would not remain in that position until the end of the next Parliament. Is that the Prime Minister's view? Before he made those observations, did he consult the right hon. Lady? After all, only the other day the Prime Minister told us that she was just halfway through her premiership—hardly a sign that if the Conservative party won the election she would resign after a short time. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman's comments aroused much political interest.
Was the Leader of the House really saying to the electors that they should not worry, and that if the Tories won the next election the country need not put up with the Prime Minister for too long? Was that a warning sign to Tories and to the electorate? If so, it does not show much confidence in the Prime Minister from one of her most senior Ministers.
Perhaps tonight the right hon. Gentleman would also enlighten us about what he called the balanced ticket, and whom he considers among those he described as his powerful colleagues will become the next leader. I wonder whether, with all his becoming modesty, he excluded himself. Who did he have in mind? Who among these powerful colleagues will take over from the Prime Minister? It would be interesting if he would use this opportunity to tell us more. My advice to him—I do not know whether he requires advice—is not to be so keen to exclude himself. Perhaps he would be the person most likely to draw the warring factions together.
What did the Leader of the House mean when he said that the fact that the party had a dominant figure did riot mean that it benefited at a general election? Was that remark cleared by No. 10? What about the right hon. Gentleman's repeated criticism of his party chairman? The Leader of the House is quoted as saying that the message has to be conveyed in more measured tones and not in a hysterical manner. I sometimes wonder whether the chairman of the Conservative party is not subjected to more criticism from certain of his Cabinet colleagues, such as the Leader of the House, than from Opposition Members. But it would be interesting to know what was in the mind of the Leader of the House when he said that.
My remarks are not to be taken as any criticism by Ministers of a frank discussion of what happened last Thursday. It is right and proper that the Leader of the House should use the opportunity presented by the media to explain matters. I am not criticising that at all. He was rather frank, but then I am suggesting only that he should be equally frank with the House. Understandably, I am not a fan of the chairman of the Tory party—;

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to whether the House should go into recess.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is that, before the recess, there


should be ample opportunity for a debate on the Government's position after the rebuff that they received at the polls last Thursday. It might be unfair, but the image portrayed by the chairman of the Conservative party is very much that portrayed on "Spitting Image"—that of a real toughie in a black leather zipped jacket. But it is not his fault that the Government's policies are being rejected. They are being rejected because they are wrong, and are seen to be wrong.
The Government's policies have caused tremendous devastation throughout the country. If the Leader of the House is trying to persuade his Cabinet colleague to change his style, I should tell him that he is unlikely to succeed. In an interview yesterday, the chairman of the Conservative party made it clear that he was not going to change his style at all, so we shall have to wait and see who wins that battle.
You questioned, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether my remarks were relevant. But one relevant debate is that taking place in the Cabinet between those who believe that there should be tax cuts and those who believe that it would be wrong to take measures that would further cut essential community services. I understand that the Leader of the House takes the latter standpoint. Our policy is clear. We believe that, first and foremost, services should be protected. I have already mentioned health and education, but hon. Members should not forget that council house building has been severely cut. In many parts of the country, including my borough, no council house building is going on. That partly explains the defeat last Thursday, when the electors had a limited opportunity to pass their verdict on the Government.
The Leader of the House initiated, albeit on television, a very interesting debate. That debate will continue, and there will no doubt be endless opportunities, right up to the election, for us to persuade the country about the rights and wrongs of Government policy. But I believe that the electorate has largely made up its mind. I am not at all complacent. Clearly, my party will have to do yet more persuading in order to ensure that it has a clear majority in the House after that election. The duty of the Leader of the House is first and foremost to the House, and he should tell us now what he has in mind and develop further the interesting and frank remarks that he made in yesterday's interview.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Perhaps we should reconsider Cyprus before rising for the recess. In, I think, 1984, I raised the question of Cyprus for the first time in a similar debate, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was on the Front Bench then, too. For all its small population and size, that island has had the attention of the United Nations, the Foreign Office, the State Department and various other western and eastern chancelleries for a disproportionate amount of time.
In recent history, there are certain key dates. For example, in 1955 we had the EOKA movement for union with Greece. In 1960, there was the independence of Cyprus. In 1963, there was the rejection of the constitution when Archbishop Makarios was president of the island. From 1963 to 1974 we had the denial of human rights to the Turkish minority, and 1974 saw the coup d'etat

organised by the Greek colonels in Athens, which established Mr. Nikos Samson as president of that island, with the ensuing Turkish intervention.
Since 1974, the island has been divided, with the Turkish minority living in the north and the Greeks living in the south. For the past two years the United Nations Secretary-General has used his good offices to attempt to negotiate a solution to the Cyprus problem. During those two years, he has dealt with Mr. Denktash and Mr. Kyprianou, and with Mr. Papandreou and the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Ozal. Of course, as a guarantor power of the 1960 constitution, Great Britain has been involved.
But in the recent history of the island's political problems there is another critical date. Despite all the efforts, the United Nations has failed to bring the two sides together. In January last year, it was fervently hoped in New York that the so-called heads of agreement would be accepted by both sides. They were certainly accepted by Mr. Denktash, but when President Kyprianou went to New York he felt unable to accept the proposals put forward by the United Nations Secretary-General. For a further year or 14 months the Secretary-General has endeavoured to bring together the two sides and to establish a framework through which a lasting solution can be evolved.
Although that plan was accepted by Mr. Denktash, it was again rejected, in effect, by Mr. Kyprianou. Indeed, he says that four points must be discussed at an international conference, suggested, incidentally, by the Soviet Union, before there can be any outline agreement. Those four points are: the withdrawal of Turkish troops; international guarantees for the island's independence; the removal of Turkish settlers since 1974; and the three freedoms.
We have got nowhere if the Greeks are maintaining that position after two years of negotiation. The Government, the Foreign Secretary and his Foreign Office Ministers can no longer go on saying that they support the good offices of the United Nations Secretary-General in his attempt to resolve the dispute. There can be no question of withdrawal of Turkish troops. That was accepted by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in the proposals he put forward. The guarantees and rights of the Turkish minority were ignored from 1963 to 1974 when the Turkish intervention took place.
Turkey will never renounce its right to be a guarantor of the rights of the Turkish minority because, were it to do so and a situation arose such as occurred in 1963 or 1974, Turkey would have no rights in international law to protect its minority. The three freedoms—movement, the right of abode and the right of a place to work—cannot be accepted as a precursor. That is something which must evolve. When two communities are separated in terms of economic strength, when one is much stronger and more numerous than the other, there must be some control before those so-called freedoms can be given.
If ever there was a time that the Cyprus issue should be debated, surely it must be before we adjourn. The good offices of the United Nations Secretary-General have been rejected. Where do we go from here? It is not good enough for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, when pressed on the issue by the Government and the Opposition, to say, "We continue to support the United Nations Secretary-General and his good offices." That has failed. The international conference suggested by Mr. Papandreou was a Soviet proposal. The Soviets want the removal of British bases from the island.
It is important to identify what is in the national interests of the United Kingdom. It must be the preservation of the NATO Alliance and NATO's position on the south-eastern flank. The dispute has continued to weaken and debilitate the south-eastern flank of NATO, with Greece and Turkey rattling the sabre and being at one another's throats. There is a large army maintained by the Greeks in the Aegean islands and an air force, and there are similar large forces opposing them around Izmir. That is a waste of resources. More importantly, that source of international tension and weakness of the NATO Alliance cannot be allowed to continue if NATO is to present a credible defence in this part of the world.
I say in all sincerity that the time has come for the British Government to shift their position. Everyone has tried to achieve a solution which would result in a bi-zonal, bi-communal, federated state in Cyprus. That was rejected by Greek Cypriots and Mr. Papandreou. It was accepted by Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish Government. It was the proposal of the United Nations Secretary-General. It was supported by the State Department and our Prime Minister. If that solution is not accepted, we cannot continue, year after year, with the tension that exists in this part of the eastern Mediterranean, while at the same time denying to the Turkish minority in the north certain basic fundamental human rights. Those people are unable to obtain a passport. They have no developed economy, no international aid and no real trading links. I believe that the time has come for some limited form of recognition, if only to persuade the Greeks that the time has come for them to moderate their view.

Mr. Roger Gale: Disgraceful.

Mr. Hickmet: My hon. Friend says that it is disgraceful, but I must tell him that I know a great deal about the matter. Many of my friends have died defending the interests of the Turkish minority community. We all hold firm and passionate views, but I am trying to express myself objectively.
I think that the time has come for some limited form of recognition—for example, direct air flights from London to the Turkish part of northern Cyprus—if only to persuade the Greeks that the time has come to shift. We cannot continue saying that the status quo is such as it is and we must support the United Nations Secretary-General's initiative. It is over; it has failed. The time has come for the British Government, who have a historic responsibility as the guarantor of the 1960 constitution, and as a former colonial power, to take some positive action.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I rise briefly to press on the Leader of the House the fact that the recess is a little premature. Despite the easing of the Government's timetable, with the defeat of the Shops Bill, the Government have not found time to discuss important matters. I shall not join my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in analysing too deeply a television programme on which the Leader of the House appeared on Sunday. Indeed, I shall pass over that, because I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a good party man. He always plays a sound innings for his side. In fact, I defended him earlier today when one of my colleagues said that he had been on for about 10 minutes

before he realised that it was not a soap commercial overruning its time. I took my colleague to task for making such an unkind remark.
Before the House rises, we need to develop two themes. On Second Reading of the Finance Bill I said that the Budget was designed primarily to appeal to the 27 million people in work and that it very much ignored the 4 million people who are out of work. That position is reflected in microcosm in the city of Bristol, which I have the honour to represent. The general unemployment rate of 12·4 per cent. in the south-west is one of the lowest regional statistics. Although the south-west is a pleasant place in which to tour and holiday, it does conceal serious pockets of unemployment to which the House should give attention.
On the northern side of Bristol there are some prosperous areas, such as Stoke Bishop and Westbury on Trym where the unemployment rate is 2 or 3 per cent. In my constituency there are areas, such as Filwood Knowle West and Hartcliffe, where the adult unemployment rate is over 25 per cent. Those are serious and debilitating circumstances for those communities. In an area of high unemployment in my constituency, a further attack has been made on the work force. I refer to the tobacco factory at Hartcliffe and the swingeing increase in cigarette tax in the last Budget. I shall not dwell on that, because the Committee which is considering the Finance Bill will deal with clause 1 tomorrow. As clause 1 encompasses that area, I shall speak at greater length then. The matter is extremely worrying. While it may satisfy a number of people that they are doing good at second hand, I repeat the warning I gave on Second Reading of the Finance Bill: after the attack on the tobacco industry there will come a concerted assault from the same quarter on the drinks industry.
During the recent local elections, when Labour regained control of Bristol, in each contested seat there was a candidate from the newly titled Green party. It was interesting to note from the results a clear relationship between the size of the Green party candidate's vote and the prosperity of the area in which the candidate stood. In the more comfortably off, middle-class areas, there was a much larger Green party vote, because people were doing reasonably well and could exercise their conscience. They could feel that they were doing their whack for the environment before they carried on as before. In areas such as my own, there was a more realistic attitude and people predominantly voted Labour.
Before the House rises we should discuss not only work opportunities but the provision of facilities. My predecessor, Will Wilkins, who represented my seat from 1945 to 1970 and who is, I am happy to say, alive and well, fought throughout his time as a Member of Parliament for a hospital, the establishment of which was first recommended in 1935. Since 1970, I have continued that fight. Although at long last there are hopeful signs, I shall really think that we have arrived only when I see the foundations dug and the concrete poured.
I should like to raise another point which, although comparatively minor, shows the scale of the problems that we should consider. At one time, one presses for a hospital and at another for a pedestrian crossing. For two years—this may sound incredible—I have been trying to get a pedestrian crossing on Leinster avenue, Knowle West. People are very anxious about the traffic, and I hope that


something will be done. The general feeling is that the area should have a fair crack of the whip. That is the type of matter we should discuss before the House rises.
I shall not say that my area has never been offered anything. A few years ago, I and a number of residents and local bodies had to attend a public inquiry because the county council had offered us a gipsy site on Airport road. Although I understand the need to provide gipsy sites, I believe that, when one is constantly pressing for a hospital, a pedestrian crossing or better school, it is not appropriate for the authorities to say, "The people can have something—here it is."
I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider his batting order before the House rises and to give us an opportunity to debate such issues. Unless we as a country seriously consider these inequalities, there will be an imbalance in society which will be disruptive, divisive and, in the end, destructive.

Mr. John Carlisle: I should like to take my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House back to the events of 25 March this year when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry came to the House to give the final judgment on the intended merger of British Leyland and General Motors in the truck and freight divisions. I should like to plead with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for hon. Members to be given more information before the House rises on events since that date, on whether there have been meetings in the United Kingdom or in the United States, and. if so, on whether those meetings have borne fruit.
At that time, several statements were made and we had one major debate and other minor debates on the subject. The matter was surrounded by a great deal of emotion and the debate degenerated into an emotional argument rather than focusing on reality. That is why I welcome this brief opportunity in the relative calm and peace of the Chamber, when we are considering the chance to go away for a few days, not necessarily to go over some of the old agruments but to reflect on what happened, on what went wrong and on the future of General Motors and of Bedford Trucks, especially in and around my constituency.
The debate was marked by the extraordinary performance of the Opposition, especially by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who performed the most extraordinary gymnastics not only in the House but outside it in the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The right hon. and learned Gentleman as much as anyone made the Government change their mind. He must take the blame if jobs in those areas are lost. Although one could understand the anxieties of midlands Members about the future of their constituents and firms in their constituencies, one could never forgive the aspersions that the Opposition cast on General Motors. Those comments went home deeply.
The debate and the future of the truck industry must be seen in the light of our over-capacity. Everything that has been said in this place in the past few weeks and months has not changed that fact. We are over-producing trucks by 40 per cent. The future of the truck industry in the United Kingdom is at risk. The decision to let GM look elsewhere means that the prospect is that, within the next

few years, truck manufacturing in this country will end. The House, especially the Government, should take note of that warning which was given today to me by a senior GM executive. As was announced during our discussions, Ford was going to Iveco. We know full well that BL will ask for further public investment to keep the truck industry going. GM's future must be uncertain because it has not been able to rationalise and go ahead with the merger with BL.
Political mistakes were made, but what went wrong after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry welcomed GM's initiative? In earlier statements, he encouraged hon. Members who were involved in the matter to think that the merger would receive Government approval. On 5 February, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, stated:
If we miss our chance, we could be throwing away a golden opportunity to build on the foundations that have been laid. If we do not build on those foundations, we may never build."—[Official Report, 5 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 346.]
I hope that my hon. Friend's words were not too ominous, but I fear that they might have been.
The initial moves by my right hon. Friend the chairman of the Conservative party—the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in an over-capacity market, might well go against BL which accepted vast sums of public money and produced a worthwhile product but had little future because of the state of the market. I say with regret that perhaps my right hon. Friends in Cabinet showed a certain amount of political cowardice, but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House must understand the deep feelings in Luton, Dunstable and surrounding areas about the events. We were given certain assurances, but they were cast to the wind.
Some notable right hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), made some disturbing comments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made a forceful speech in which he referred to a European option, as though it might be better to go to bed with the Italians, the Spaniards or the Germans than with the Americans. It is ironic that many of the complaints to the House—many of them justified—about foreign imports have concerned cheap cars from Spain, Germany and Italy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) implied in his own way that we could not fully trust General Motors' word. Those of us who have known GM well—Vauxhall Motors has been in Luton for 83 years and Bedford Trucks for 55 years—thought that those remarks were somewhat unfortunate.
Why, therefore, did the Government change their mind when they heard the siren voices from both sides of the House, in particular the siren voices of their own supporters? I remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who said:
Is my right hon. Friend"—
that was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—
aware that a majority of Conservative Members regret the collapse of the General Motors talks, as a great opportunity lost?
I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) agreeing with that sentiment. He intervened earlier on a similar theme. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling continued:


Would it not have been better for the Government to concentrate on securing a successful motor industry in Britain rather than to respond to the misguided and jingoistic calls from those who will leave a price to be paid in lost jobs and higher taxes?"—[official Report, 25 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 798.]
The Government's decision will undoubtedly mean a loss of jobs and higher taxes as money is poured into keeping British Leyland afloat.
The Opposition's behaviour at that time was remarkable. It began with the scaremongering tactics of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He thought that he had found a scoop and that it provided a chance to get on to the front page of the newspapers. However, that fact had been known in the Luton and Dunstable area for several months before his intervention. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, throughout the statements and debates, persisted in denigrating General Motors and all that it had done for employment and investment in this country.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman called General Motors a predator. He accused it of putting company interests above the national interest. He visited various public meetings, including one in an adjoining constituency, where he stirred up the fears of many trade union members about what would happen if General Motors went ahead with its merger with British Leyland. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if one job is lost, as I am afraid it will be, in the Luton and Dunstable area, the loss of that first job and of succeeding jobs will be laid right at his feet because of the policy that he pursued at that time. When it happens, I hope that he will be able to sleep quietly in his bed. I shall be unable to do so because it will mean that my constituents will have lost their jobs.
The House will recall the enormous amount of anti-American feeling that was generated on the Opposition Benches. I remember that one Opposition Member called the Americans "a foreign body." Many aspersions were cast upon the integrity of General Motors.
I have represented that area for seven years and have lived in it all my life. Therefore, I cannot underestimate the value of Vauxhall Motors and Bedford Trucks to that part of the country. They have been excellent employers. They have had their problems, which means that they have had to make fairly large numbers of people redundant. However, in virtually every case they were voluntary redundancies. The companies looked after those who lost their jobs in a way that provides an example to employers elsewhere in the country.
They have not asked for public money. In recent times Luton received £5 million of public money, while Ellesmere Port received £150 million. That is peanuts compared with the vast sums of money that have been poured into British Leyland. They have made a contribution to the community in the surrounding areas that is second to none. Only today I was privileged to attend a showing to the public of its new synthetic pitch by Luton Town football club. The pitch was donated to the club by Bedford Trucks. It is being used by the local community to such an extent that it is fully booked until the autumn. It has brought the local football club, which suffered tremendously after the unfortunate incidents at the Luton-Millwall game, at which I was present, back into the community.
Let nobody say that Vauxhall Motors and Bedford Trucks have not done a tremendous amount for the people

of Luton and Dunstable. They have sponsored numerous events which have provided encouragement to the youth of the area. The have put money into Lilleshall and encouraged the Football Association's school of football there. The number of local charitable projects that they have supported is far too long for me to list. Their record is excellent. Those hon. Members with constituencies in that area were very sad to hear of the various aspersions that were cast upon them during those debates and statements.
I remind the House that it was Bedford Trucks which donated 50 trucks to the relief organisation during the recent famine relief exercise in Ethiopia and the Sudan. They were offered in the same spirit as was shown during the war.
The tragedy of the General Motors debate is that the undertakings that were given by the company were never fully understood by the House. It is possible that they were never fully understood by the Government. Certainly those undertakings were conveniently ignored by the Opposition. General Motors gave an absolute undertaking that if a merger took place between British Leyland's truck division and General Motors the majority of the products sold to businesses in the United Kingdom would be manufactured in the United Kingdom. Let the House never forget that the British content of Bedford Trucks is far higher than that in the case of Vauxhall.
A second undertaking was given that General Motors would make a substantial additional investment in that industry. That would have safeguarded jobs, even if it did not create jobs. The House should never forget, furthermore, that this country invests £38 billion in the United States, whereas the United States invests £33 billion in this country. We know which gets the better return on its money—this country. The amount of cross-investment between the two countries is enormous.
The third and probably the most important undertaking that General Motors gave, which would have had a most dramatic impact in the area that I represent, was that it would set up its European headquarters in the Luton and Dunstable area. That would have meant an increase in research and development, which at the moment creates work for about 1,000 employees.
Despite the questions, statements and supportive noises made by my right hon. and hon. Friends with constituencies in the area, in particular by my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), we lost the argument. Therefore, I must ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House what is to happen now. What is to be the established plan for trucks? I should like my right hon. Friend to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that there is still a chance that General Motors will come back to the negotiating table. Immense damage was created by the attitude that was adopted towards the company. The fact that the talks ended so abruptly was very hurtful. It was similar to the hurt felt by a bride who is led to the altar and then suddenly turned away.
May we have a statement from my hon. Friend the Minister of State about his talks in New York on 4 May with Mr. Robert Stemper, the head of General Motors? My hon. Friend should come to the House and report on exactly what was said at that meeting. It is not too late for this particular suitor to return. If the truck industry in this country is to survive and thrive, General Motors must be


part of the future programme. To those who have studied these matters and been closely involved in them during the past few months, it seems that the only hope for the trucks division of British Leyland is a merger with General Motors, unless the taxpayer is to continue to pick up the tab—a tab that will grow in size.
Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to make time before the recess for this very important matter to be aired once again and for the House to be told at what point the negotiations stand. I hope that he will say to General Motors that, although the deal was called off on 25 March, we are still interested in the future of the industry and that the Government want General Motors to come back again and talk to us.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I can understand the anxieties of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) about the condition of the motor industry in his part of the world. I can also understand the acute embarrassment that he and his hon. Friends must feel at the fact that their constituencies may now face the sort of deprivation and suffering that have been felt in other parts of the country, not least in Scotland in recent years with the closure of factories such as Linwood. I hope that that kind of disaster does not befall the people of Luton, but the hon. Gentleman cannot avoid his share of the responsibility for the economic policies that the Government whom he supports have been pursuing over the years and that have led to that kind of disaster.
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to pursue his constituency point and I hope that the House will bear with me and understand why I am anxious to raise another national, but at the same time constituency, point which should be debated before the House considers rising for the recess.
Other hon. Members have already referred to the concern that is felt in many parts of the United Kingdom about nuclear power stations following the disaster at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. People are understandably concerned about the condition of our ageing Magnox power stations. People are acutely concerned about the Government's proposals to go ahead with the construction of pressurised water reactors at Sizewell and elsewhere, depending on the outcome of the public inquiry. People are becoming increasingly worried about the disposal of waste. The secrecy surrounding the industry is contributing more than anything else to that concern.
My constituents in East Lothian are especially anxious, because the incident at Chernobyl has coincided with the arrival of the first consignment of nuclear fuel at the new advanced gas-cooled reactor station at Torness in my constituency. Over the years we have had many assurances from many worthy people, Ministers and scientists about the safety of nuclear installations. How often have they told us that that kind of incident could not happen; that it is inconceivable; that it is impossible? Well, it does happen.
We have seen what almost turned into a disaster at Three Mile Island in the United States. We have now seen a serious accident in the Soviet Union, which seems likely to have far-reaching effects in the immediate vicinity of the nuclear reactor. When I talk about the immediate vicinity I am talking about a radius of hundreds of miles

rather than tens of miles. We are even being told here, more than 1,000 miles away, that we should be careful before drinking rainwater and we have seen people testing samples of milk. That shows the concern that exists, despite all the assurances.
Not only do accidents seem to have occurred after those assurances have been given over and over again by the nuclear lobby, but it keeps emerging that accidents happened before those assurances were given by the nuclear lobby. For instance, news of the accident at Windscale in 1957 emerged many years afterwards.
People seem to be either strongly in favour of nuclear power or strongly against ft. I make no apology for the fact that I have tended to be an agnostic on this subject. I am in no way qualified to pontificate on whether it is right or wrong, safe or unsafe. That is a matter for scientists and for those who are supposed to be able to lead and advise us as decision-makers on these matters.
Therefore, seven or eight years ago, when we were advised that there was a need for a new power station in Scotland and that is was advisable for that to be an AGR, I was prepared to accept that advice. Indeed, I was prepared to say that if a new power station was to be constructed in Scotland I was delighted that it would be in my constituency because we needed the employment.
That building is now going ahead apace. Indeed, it is nearly complete. I have tended—I stress that I use the past tense—to want to believe that the people who advise us on this subject are not malicious and that they are not deliberately trying to mislead us about safety and the need to construct more and more power stations. But, there we are. The power station at Torness is virtually complete. Many billions of pounds have been spent and many of us feel that we have been let down and misled by the authorities and the South of Scotland Electricity Board on a whole range of aspects of that power station.
Employment has been of interest in my constituency. We were told that the construction of that power station would create a vast number of local jobs. Yet, throughout its construction, many local people, whose last jobs had been in the construction industry, could not find employment on that construction site while people were coming in from all parts of Britain and beyond to work there. That was an assurance which did not seem to be fulfilled in the way that many of us had hoped.
Now we still have all the general assurances about safety and about the fact that the waste material from the power station can be safely handled and disposed of. In the context of let-downs in the past and of what happened at Chernobyl two or three weeks ago there is growing concern in my constituency and that is being expressed to me in letters from my constituents, supporters of all parties. That point was expressed to me by a number of people during the course of the local election campaigns last week. People are deeply worried about the possible implications of living next door to such a plant.
Another aspect to the argument is whether there is an urgent need to commission a new power station of any description in Scotland at present. If Torness were to be commissioned next year, we would have more than 100 per cent. more generating capacity in Scotland than we are likely to need at the maximum possible peak load in the coldest imaginable winter. Why on earth is there a mad rush to go ahead with commissioning that power station now? That is, at best, insensitive and, at worst, something far worse than that. We have massive overcapacity. The


commissioning of a new power station could only put existing perhaps conventional coal-burning power stations elsewhere in Scotland at risk. What is the sense of doing that?
I have already mentioned that the first nuclear fuel was delivered to Torness well ahead of schedule two weeks ago. What on earth is the hurry in commissioning that power station? We do not need it immediately. We may need it in due course. It may be possible to satisfy everybody that it is safe, but is it prudent or defensible to go ahead with loading a power station of that nature at a time like this?
I am not just raising this point now because of the pressure that has blown up over the past couple of weeks. I made an identical point when I gave evidence to the public inquiry on the handling of waste from Torness over a year ago when I suggested that questions about safety still had to be answered and that, as there was no urgent need to commission the power station, it would be sensible and prudent to postpone activity on that site until proper answers could be given to such questions.
I hope that the Leader of the House understands the point that I am making. I hope that the Government are aware of the serious concern in my constituency and, indeed, in neighbouring constituencies on this point. I should be grateful for any information that can be given, if not by the Leader of the House this evening, perhaps by the Secretary of State for Scotland as soon as possible. What is the timetable now for loading Torness power station? It appears to be going ahead of schedule. No official press release was given by the South of Scotland Electricity Board to the effect that nuclear fuel had been brought on to the site. It seemed to be brought in rather surreptitiously, well ahead of schedule.
My constituents, I, and indeed the House are entitled to know a little more about the Government's proposals to deal with our electricity needs in the coming years. Are coal-burning power stations secure and shall we have a properly independent and properly funded inspectorate looking after the safety of nuclear power stations in Britain? Is it not now time to think again about expanding Britain's nuclear generating capacity?

Mr. Roger Gale: I did not come here to discuss the future of Cyprus. My many Greek Cypriot constituents who lost relatives, friends and homes in the armed struggle to regain their homeland have another, more serious problem facing them—posed, this time, by the British Government.
However, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) would be disappointed if I did not pick up the gauntlet that he threw down. He asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to refer to the problem of Cyprus before we adjourned, and he mentioned the Turkish intervention in the island in 1974. The House knows full well that that was an invasion, not an intervention.
My hon. Friend referred to the legitimate demands of the Greek Cypriot people as some sort of Soviet plot. I remind the House that the Greek Cypriots want three freedoms—freedom of movement, freedom of abode and freedom of the right to work. My political dictionary has never included those three freedoms as civil rights that are ardently fought for in the Soviet Union.
The Greek Cypriots have rightly made one other demand. They demand the withdrawal of the thousands-strong garrison of Turkish troops in northern Cyprus who are illegally occupying that island and, in many cases, the homes of some of my constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was right to ask for movement by the British Government. Our Government should encourage a move towards federation and the three freedoms for Greek and Turkish Cypriots so that they, the natural inhabitants of the island, may enjoy the freedom of their home.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will remember that I suggested to him during business questions last week that the House should debate tourism, an industry on which, as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) said, many jobs depend and which is under siege. My right hon. Friend suggested that tonight would be the appropriate time for that debate. I welcome the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for York, but I still believe that the subject should be debated in a full House and in Government time.
My hon. Friend the Member for York criticised some of the facilities that this country provides for tourists, and he mentioned specifically the Customs facilities of the Channel ports. Unless the House takes rigorous action in the near future, those facilities are likely to become academic.
The matter that I wish to discuss particularly is the future of the Channel fixed link. The fixed link depends for its economic success on the elimination and theft of business in the Channel ports. Without that business, the fixed link will not be economically viable. If the fixed link survives, the Channel ports will go under, and if they go under the question of Customs facilities at those ports will become academic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) mentioned the effects of a fixed link on the developing port of Ramsgate. I endorse his comments. I should like the House to consider the effects of a fixed link on my constituency where we see some possible short-term gains through the provision of bed-night accommodation for construction workers, but beyond that we see a long-term loss.
We fear that we shall suffer that long-term loss unless the road infrastructure in north-east Kent—particularly the Thanet Way and the Ramsgate harbour approach road—is modernised. Unless the Department of Transport and the Kent county council address themselves to that need not as an afterthought but as a priority, the tunnel route will become the north-east Kent bypass and the fragile recovery of the area will fail.
We heard in the previous debate about the difficulties of the north-west of England. I did not intervene In that debate, but I understand those difficulties particularly well, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, because we face not the unemployment of the north-west, but male unemployment of 27 per cent. From the Kentish coast we see French money being poured into the Nord Pas de Calais region. I suggest that the choice is not between jobs for the north or south of England, but between jobs for Kent or for France. It is up to our Government to give us the opportunity that the French Government are giving to Nord Pas de Calais.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South referred to the growing secrecy surrounding the Channel tunnel project. The Department of Transport's Channel tunnel


consultative committee hearings are beginning to take on a bunker quality. As my hon. Friend said, the Channel Tunnel Group's figures are public knowledge. So where are the Government's figures? It is not surprising that Lord Pennock seeks to blame this House for his company's financial frustrations. The City is, indeed, running scared. The golden goose is not laying golden eggs; it is dropping bricks.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the protection normally afforded to Back Benchers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said that the hybrid Bill procedure
contains every opportunity for those affected to be heard".
He said that the procedure
is a substantial and thorough procedure which ensures that the public have the widest opportunity to make representations as petitioners to the two Select Committees".—[Official Report, 9 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 645.]
My right hon. Friend's "Invitation to Promoters", published later in December, said:
It is an important part of the process for such a Bill that those whose interests or rights are injuriously affected be given the chance to voice their objections to a Parliamentary Select Committee by petitioning against the Bill; and it is not part of the Government's intention to constrain that right.
It appears that that right is about to be constrained. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, I do not wish to prejudge the decision of the House's Standing Orders Committee. I am sure that hon. Members who serve on that Committee will do their utmost to protect the interests not only of Back Benchers, but of the petitioners who have a right to be heard. I should like to place on record my request that, at the very least, those petitioners be given the standard recognised minimum eight weeks from Second Reading to petition before the Select Committee.
The White Paper said that
the Government…will not seek to oppose the right of anyone to appear before the Committees…further steps, for example to ensure that potential petitioners receive timely information both on the procedures themselves and on the substance of the legislation, are also being considered.
That is a far cry from the advertisement that the Department of Transport placed in the national press. That advertisement said:
Before the Channel Tunnel Bill becomes law there will be opportunities for those directly affected locally to have their voices heard.
The House has seen the efforts of the Department of Transport to constrain the process by which the House should normally consider the hybrid Bill procedure. For that reason, I am gravely concerned that the words "directly affected locally" may be construed to mean only those along a very narrow route indeed. Before the House rises for the spring recess, I would like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to guarantee that all people of north-east Kent who will be directly affected and whose livelihoods are at stake will have an opportunity to have their voices heard.

9 pm

Mr. David Amess: After that helpful contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), there are three brief matters that we should consider before the House adjourns for the spring recess. The first two are specifically constituency matters and the third relates to a wider area.
The first matter affects more than 1,000 properties in the Band ward in Basildon. Half of them are owner-occupied and the rest are rented from the local authority and the Commission for the New Towns. They were built by Sir Lindsey Parkinson after 1960. Unfortunately, the builders have gone into liquidation and my constituents find that many of the properties have been blighted by what is described as concrete cancer.
The outcome is that many of my constituents who have been trying to sell their properties have encountered a number of difficulties. They have found building societies and surveyors most reluctant to expedite matters so that the properties can be resold. I am anxious that my constituents should be able to seek some comfort from what the House might be able to do for them. My constituents are looking to the Commission for the New Towns and the local authority to purchase back those properties or for the House to amend the legislation so that full compensation can be given to the owners of properties which cannot be resold.
The next matter concerns more than 1,000 of my constituents in the Fellmores and Langdon Hills areas of Basildon. Those people have formed an action group to deal with heating matters. They are serviced by a coal-fired district heating system. Many of those people have difficult social problems. Many are without jobs, although they wish to work, and there are quite a number of single parent families. Therefore, the social difficulties are obvious. Two of those estates are in my constituency. I have seen many heating bills which, to put it mildly, are astronomical. A number of repossession orders have been served on properties there, too.
I have been grappling with this matter since I became the Member of Parliament for Basildon, and I have not had any success so far. The running cost for those properties should be £250. However, the average charge levied is 56 per cent. higher than individual gas-fired central heating would be. My constituents want the inquiry, which is currently being held about the properties, to be concluded and for individual gas-fired central heating to be installed.
The third matter that I wish to raise concerns protection for the unborn child. A year ago the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) introduced the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill. The Bill was given national publicity and coverage. The right hon. Gentleman brought the matter here, and Second Reading was given overwhelming support. Indeed, many hon. Members would have judged, by the volume of their constituency postbag, that there was widespread support for the protection of the unborn child. However, because of the way in which matters are conducted in the House, the Bill was talked out and it fell.
This year my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), after a serious illness, bravely decided to reintroduce an amended version of the Bill. Rather unfavourably, he was drawn ninth in the ballot. Again, unfortunately, because of our procedures in this place, it now appears that that will not be debated this year.

Mr. William Cash: In the light of the history of the matter, does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to press for a Select Committee to look into it in the depth that is required? That should be done particularly because of the claims in the press in the past few days that it will soon be possible, through the techniques of human embryo research, to enable men to have children. Against


that serious background and in view of the grave problems that we face, is it not incumbent on the House to take the serious and responsible view that a Select Committee is desirable to inform not only the public but Parliament, so that those matters can be brought out into the open once and for all?

Mr. Amess: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know how strongly he feels about that matter. However, as he will see presently, I have come to the conclusion that there has been enough talk on the subject, and I want some action now. I respect my hon. Friend's view.
My views are similar to those echoed by Cardinal Basil Hume, who says:
No matter what claims on our sympathy and understanding are made on behalf of particular research into the causes of infertility and genetic defect, and into embryology, the needs of some cannot be allowed to eclipse the rights of others.
Cardinal Hume supported the Bill.
Research on human embryos cannot supply us with the answers that scientists are rightly seeking for the tragedies of infertility and other inherited disorders. The motives of scientists wishing to pursue embryo research may be entirely good. They may, in all good faith, believe that by examining live human embryos they will find the cures to the cruel diseases that afflict so may people. Professor Jerome Lejeune, who is expected to find a cure for Down's syndrome within the decade, asked himself whether he could advance his research work by using human embryos as guinea pigs, but concluded that such work could tell him absolutely nothing.
Embryo research is deemed necessary to improve the technique of in vitro fertilisation. However, I am filled with horror at the sort of experimentation canvassed by Dr. Edwards of Bourne hall. He stated that it might be necessary to put an embryo in the oviduct of a pig or rabbit for six to 12 weeks and then take it out again. Is a pig or a rabbit the right place for a human child to begin his or her life? I think not.
There is no doubt that the opponents of the Bill have sought, for better or worse, to distort what the Bill seeks to achieve. It has nothing to do with contraception. With regard to infertility, it would not affect adversely in any respect what is being done at the moment. Some opponents of the Bill should be honest and admit that several people who are engaged in helping childless couples are seeking to make and are achieving a substantial livelihood out of their work. I have been staggered by the size of the fees that are being charged to advise childless couples. The House should do something about this matter. I am anxious to learn from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when we can expect legislation on the Warnock report. I do not understand why such matters should be left to private Members' Bills. We dealt with surrogacy quite adequately last year. I cannot understand why we cannot do the same with these matters this year.
As I look round the Chamber, I can see that all hon. Members are alive and, I trust, awake. They are pleased to be here. When we were conceived there were no ifs or buts: it happened. There were no discussions about experimentation on us. Why should that happen now? Before the end of the Session I very much hope that we will fulfil the trust that the British people have in us and that we will give protection to the unborn child.

Mr. William Cash: I should like to raise the matter of a report which was published today by the science working party on alternative therapy by the British Medical Association. It has given rise to a significant amount of press comment and other comments on television and in the media generally, and I expect that comment will continue for some time.
Today's London Standard carries a headline
It is not what the doctor ordered, BMA tells Charles fringe medicine 'does not work'.
The report continues:
An exhaustive survey of alternative medicine suggested by Prince Charles while he was president of the BMA three years ago has failed to find any proof of the effectiveness of most treatments and warns that some can even be harmful.
It goes on:
The conclusion of a team of leading doctors published today amounts to a scathing dismissal of remedies like acupuncture, osteopathy, homoeopathy and herbalism".
The report has been produced by the British Medical Association working party.
It is right that the House and the public should be aware that the BMA is a trade union. Moreover, it is a trade union which has a vested interest in ensuring the position of its members, including their remuneration. There should he an independent inquiry into this matter and into the important matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, (Mr Amess) so that Parliament, legislators and the public can be properly informed about what is happening in this important area of public health.
I must stress that a Royal Commission was held in 1979 in New Zealand with regard to at least one of the disciplines mentioned in the report—chiropractic. I believe that there should be fair and independent inquiries into such matters. Many hon. Members or their friends and relations have received treatment from alternative or complementary practitioners. It is clear that the Royal Commission report to which I have referred was used by the medical establishment at the time, through visits to this country, to Canada and other parts of the world, to discredit chiropractic.
The Royal Commission did the opposite to what the medical establishment hoped and believed it would. It rapped the medical establishment firmly over the knuckles and said that there was considerable efficacy in chiropractic and that it should stand in its own right.
The BMA has published its report and has, until this speech, at any rate, caught the headlines on the subject. I do not wish to take a headline view. My concern is to draw attention to an important matter and to the fact that the report has to be viewed against the background of it being anything but independent. The report is negative and lacks the impartiality which one would expect of an organisation such as the BMA. The New Zealand chiropractic report, for example, is a substantial volume of careful and well organised evidence. The BMA report virtually dismisses chiropractic treatment in a few paragraphs, and the same goes for all the other alternative therapies, such as acupuncture, osteopathy and herbal remedies.
If we were to look back 150 years to the development and evolution of medicine in this country, we would recognise that doctors, distinguished as they are now, had themselves developed their training and practice in a evolving manner from the days when in 1803, for example, or therabouts, King George III was treated as a


lunatic when he was suffering from porphyria. In that period people were treated by leeching and by bloodletting. That is not all that long ago, and accordingly we must take a more serious view of therapists such as those practising acupuncture, chiropractic treatment and osteopathy.
This year I was asked to open, and was honoured to do so, the British Holistic Medical Association's conference. It is an organisation which has been set up to develop bridges and constructive dialogue between practitioners in orthodox medicine and practitioners in complementary and alternative medicine. This should be developed and encouraged, unlike the report which has been produced by the BMA.
There is another organisation in which I played some part, together with Lord Home of the Hirsel, in introducing it to the public at a meeting which was held in Parliament last year. I refer to the Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. It is a responsible body that has been set up with a view to ensuring that there are higher standards and better qualifications for those who practise alternative medicine and proper standards of discipline. It has had extensive consultations with Dr. Noah of the communicable disease surveillance department and has come up with a code of ethics which has the seal of approval of the appropriate authorities.
The BMA has produced its report and it should now help those who have found that they are the butt end of a prejudicial report so that they may have a reasonable opportunity of securing an independent inquiry following a biased and rather short report.
It is interesting that 208 Members signed an early-day motion requesting that
those who practise in the alternative field should have proper representation on an official medical committee which has been set up under statutory authority.
The 208 Members have shown their inclinations and their sympathy towards alternative medicine.
I found the BMA's report extremely negative, extremely destructive and very ill timed. I sincerely hope that there will be an opportunity for a countervailing balance so that the patients, who are the most important people, know that when they go to see an alternative practitioner they will not be dismissed as they have been hitherto by the BMA.

Mr. Peter Shore: Although limited in time and tucked away from the glare of publicity, these are important and valuable debates. Except for the rare occasions when a national event has not been resolved or properly debated and the Opposition are obliged to amend the Adjournment Motion, our two or three-hour debates are focused not on any one subject, but are given up to a wide range of matters of concern to Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House. It is an opportunity for us to raise matters of importance to our constituents, our areas and ourselves.
It is interesting how often these unco-ordinated speeches raise constituency and broad national anxieties. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who made the first of the 13 speeches that we have heard, spoke not just for the people of Kent and his constituency—he was later joined by the hon. Member for Thanet, North

(Mr. Gale)—when he expressed his views about the need for the most thorough and rigorous inquiry into the Channel tunnel or fixed-link project, but for a great part of the nation.
I have never taken the view that the hybrid Bill procedure is satisfactory—indeed, it is old-fashioned and archaic—to decide important issues of public planning policy. It is impossible to imagine an issue of greater national importance and more worthy of serious study on grounds of the environment, economics, regional policy, the future of the Merchant Navy and broad national interests. No project rivals in importance the proposal to build a fixed link between Britain and France. I therefore remain strongly of the view that it would have been far better for the House and for the project if we had proceeded with a most rigorous and searching public inquiry. Failing that, it is imperative that no obstacle which would in any way limit the rights of petitioners should be raised. I refer not merely to those whose economic interests would be affected by land purchase and the rest, but to the large interests which should be able to present their petitions, argue their case and have the matter as thoroughly investigated as this admittedly inadequate procedure will allow.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the prospective closure of the Severn tunnel junction, he was talking not simply about a facility in his area but about a marshalling yard facility which affects a large part of south Wales and the southwest of England. In the context of a particular closure proposal, he raised the prospects of British Rail's freight service.
We have inevitably heard speeches about the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) drew attention to the older Magnox stations and asked some important questions about them. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) rightly reflected his constituents' anxieties at the timetabling of the proposal for commissioning the Torness AGR in his constituency. Tomorrow we shall have a major debate on nuclear policy, and that will be an occasion on which these and similar anxieties can be fully aired. I have no doubt whatever that, if we are to proceed with nuclear energy in this country, there will have be a continued policy of maximum openness so that people do not feel that important information is being withheld from them. Secondly, there must be objective, scrupulous and factual presentation of all the relevant factors so that people can have a rational basis on which to assess the risks and a framework in which to set their anxieties.
The hon. Members for York (Mr. Gregory) and for Thanet, North mentioned tourism—an important industry that affects us all. The Labour party does not take a casual view of tourism. Our concern is that we should never forget that tourism, like many other service industries, can make an important contribution to our economic prosperity and welfare, but it is no substitute for manufacturing industry, because that industry is important and essential to our national prosperity.

Mr. Gregory: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: I would rather not. Mine is the first of the concluding speeches, and I should like to mention other points before I finish.
I do not want to get engaged in the dialogue on the future of Cyprus. My own view about that troubled island is that there must be a time when, under suitable international auspices, the representatives of the two communities can agree about their future. It is not unusual in human affairs to be told that no such agreement is at present in sight, but to assume from that that one should give up trying and begin making important decisions on the basis that no progress is now possible is a defeatist course of action that I do not recommend.
There were two fascinating contributions by the hon. Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who, in different ways, dealt with important aspects of medicine. I strongly recommend to the hon. Member for Basildon that the House should wait for Government legislation based on the Warnock report. I hope that we shall not have to wait too long.
The hon. Member for Stafford commented on the recently published report on fringe medicine. He should not be too concerned, because such a report undertaken by the BMA suffers from precisely the drawbacks and defects that a study under such auspices inevitably experiences.
Timing has given this debate a special importance, because this is the first opportunity that hon. Members have had to express their concern since 20 million of our fellow citizens had the opportunity to vote last Thursday. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall. North (Mr. Winnick) precisely addressed this matter. All hon. Members will agree that public opinion expressed in the polling booths is of paramount importance to us all. There can be no doubt that the combination of two by-elections, elections for every council seat in the 32 London boroughs, the first election ever for ILEA, and elections for one third of district and metropolitan councils throughout the land has been the most important expression of British public sentiment since the general election.
The net result of polling on 8 May has been a disaster for the Government, with the loss of nearly 700 seats on councils throughout the land, the loss of the rock-ribbed Conservative stronghold in Ryedale and the retention by a whisker—100 votes—of another stronghold in West Derbyshire. There have been some gains for the Liberal party, but the clear victor of the nationwide contest has been the Labour party. Psephologists are now arguing only whether, if last Thursday had been a general election, the Labour party would have had an overall majority or would be the strongest single party just short of the magic 326 seats. This is a sea-change in electoral support and in the life and fortunes of the Government.
In those circumstances I am a little torn on the question whether the House should adjourn for its Whitsun recess. The more the Government are exposed to the critical examination of the House, the more ragged, inept and confused their policies are seen to be. In the short period between Easter and Whitsun, we have seen the forced reversal of Government policy on British Leyland—the subject of the speech by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle)—with the hapless Secretary of State for Trade and Industry obliged to make a total volte face and to retain in British public ownership both the Austin Rover car division and the truck and Land-Rover divisions of British Leyland. The clear intention had been to sell them to the Ford Motor Company and General Motors.
We have also seen the Shops Bill—a major item in the Government's legislative programme—killed stone

dead on the Floor of the House when the Labour Opposition were joined by a small army of Tories in revolt. The Government have received a terrible rebuff in public opinion, both in their handling of the United States' strike against Libya from British airfields and in their dilatory and unco-ordinated response to the Chernobyl disaster.
As this Session of Parliament has unfolded, the country has rightly sensed a process of disintegration in the Government, an uncertainty of response to major external events, divisions on major policy questions, and a barely concealed revolt among ministerial colleagues against arbitrary decision-making by the Prime Minister. Massively damaged by the resignations of the former Secretaries of State for Defence and for Trade and Industry, and, above all., by the Prime Minister's involvement in the events that led to their departure, the Prime Minister's standing and credibility have now reached an all-time low.
Because I wish to see the rapid demise of the Government, I can see the case for giving them no respite and no Adjournment. However, against that, I must set other considerations, of which the House will be glad to know. Individual and collective ministerial mistakes affect the whole country, not just Ministers. Critical issues are arising and they need more time for serious reflection than they have so far been given if Ministers are not to make even more grievous errors in the immediate future.
With the Budget and Finance Bill largely out of the way, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government must reconsider their economic policy. The figure of 3·5 million unemployed shows no sign of decreasing. Since oil prices have collapsed, the balance of payments has predictably moved into major deficit. The capacity of manufacturing industry to close the gap has been squandered and lost. The Chancellor's stated first priority of further income tax cuts must be changed now that the nation has so clearly and rightly voted for an increase in public expenditure on health, education, transport and social services, as I am sure the Lord Privy Seal will agree.
There are major problems in energy policy, including the decision on the pressurised water reactor nuclear power station which now needs the most urgent consideration. There is the question of the Top Salaries Review Body's report which exploded in the Government's face a year ago and which is likely to be more explosive this time.
We all know that the Lord Privy Seal has been stretching his mind on these and similar problems over the weekend. As those who heard him on "Weekend World" on Sunday and later on "The World at One'' w ill acknowledge, he is disturbed by the raucous style and lurid language of the Government, in particular by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and chairman of the Conservative party. We know that while in place of the Government's arrogant style he is in favour of calculated humility, his real concern is not the presentation but the content of policy. In the great battle between the advocates of private affluence and public squalor, those who believe in minimum collective provision and those who believe in an expanding and just economy, the Lord Privy Seal realises that his Government have gone much too far in the wrong direction.
I hope that in replying to this brief debate the Lord Privy Seal will not only comment on the particular points put to him by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but will


ease and interest our forthcoming Adjournment by developing further his reflections on the need for change to establish good government in Britain.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I rather enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). One normally has well-regulated debates on the recess motion that deal with the whole range of domestic and constituency problems. The right hon. Gentleman sought to elevate it all, possibly because we may run out of speakers ahead of the allotted three hours, into a tour d'horizon of a most powerful and partisan political complexion, with a flattering amount of reference to myself. Having thoroughly enjoyed his speech, I must point out, as he will understand, that Ministers are chained to the Dispatch Box and conventions, and are required and expected to answer the debate, so I shall proceed to that rather more pedestrian task. However, I thank him for his kind references to me in the conclusion of his speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) made an extremely effective marshalling of the case that he has deployed in the House on a number of times on what I am so glad that he still calls the Channel tunnel. I was brought up on this controversy, thinking of it as a tunnel rather than a link. I realise that, as in so many aspects of my life, I am still attached to the past and am not as contemporary as I should be, but I still find that a happier explanation of this substantial project, which will undoubtedly exercise the House in the months ahead. My hon. Friend was joined in the task of outlining his anxieties by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). I shall report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport the points that have been made about public consultation and the need to have as much openness as is feasible in this matter.
The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) made a characteristically eloquent appeal on behalf of the freight services that operate in south Wales and expressed his concern that any reorganisation should not savage the standard of services which that part of the Principality has come to expect. I shall report his views.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) returned to the subject for which he has made great and honourable sacrifice, the Anglo-Irish agreement. He elaborated on four sectors in which he thought that progress could be made which, while acknowledging the continuance of the agreement, would mitigate it and make it more acceptable to the majority community in the Province. It would be wholly inappropriate that I should comment on the thought that that proposition is valid, but it deserves the fullest consideration in the House and the Northern Ireland Office. I shall be as competent a postboy as I can be in these matters.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was joined by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in raising the subject of British nuclear policy. Specific aspects of it were mentioned such as the safety of the Magnox reactors and Torness, which is in the process of being commissioned in East Lothian. Both hon. Members deserve to be warmly congratulated on their ingenuity in using this evening to make speeches that will look just as good in the Haddington Courier whether they

are made today or tomorrow. The hon. Member for East Lothian was listened to in attentive silence. If he had spoken tomorrow he would have had to wrestle with the massed ranks—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Of Privy Councillors".] I have not spent all my life trying to become a Privy Councillor without having some residual affection for the role that they perform, but I understand only too well the frustrations felt by the hon. Gentleman.
However, whether those speeches are made today or tomorrow, they have the same validity and are made with the same integrity. I shall make it my responsibility to ensure that their contents are made known to the Ministers taking part in tomorrow's debate. I thank the hon. Members for Yeovil and for East Lothian for relieving the pressure just a little on those wishing to speak tomorrow.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) spoke about tourism. It was claimed that there should be some structural reorganisation in the way that the public sector addresses that industry. I understand the arguments, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will concede that the issue is made more difficult by virtue of the many Departments and public bodies involved. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate is particularly valid, and will be noted. I believe that he speaks with wide parliamentary support when he talks about the frustration in learning that there will be a great fall in the amount of potential American tourist traffic because of events in the middle east and Libya. I shall make it my personal responsibility to write to the American ambassador pointing out my hon. Friend's comments. He will not need any reminding, but it might be helpful to reinforce that point.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) allowed politics to intrude in our proceedings. Not for him the paving stones, drains and other things with which we have a cheerful familiarity. His view was that recent local election results might have some longer-term political consequences. I agree that for the Government they represent a defeat, but with every defeat goes a challenge. The nature and the measure of the challenge will draw a response from the Tory party so that I can look forward to the next election with, I suspect, much more inner confidence than the hon. Gentleman can.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney cheerfully talked about the substantial and compelling gains made by the Labour party, which, indeed, they were, but he did not reveal that in his neck of the London woods the Labour party did not exactly ride high everywhere. There is a volatility about the situation which should encourage some, dare I say, humility among those of us who make forecasts. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I am trying to answer a point made from behind him that I was unwilling to answer when it came from him, but this subject arose because of the television programme "Weekend World". For years now I have looked across at the right hon. Gentleman with growing affection and increasing incomprehension, in a sense, that anyone could hold such heresies. There must be a better life for him on a Sunday morning than communing with politics. Has he not got a dog to exercise or a church congregation to swell? Apparently not. He was glued to "Weekend World" to see what cheerful and reflective observations I would make.
My remarks are on the record. I should not have thought we should postpone the recess on account of my contribution to that television programme. I should like to


think that it would feature in the parliamentary debate before the recess, after the recess, up to the long recess, through the new Session of Parliament, and after the striking Tory victory. People will trace all that as part of the great unfolding of events. I have no shyness about that. It is a better use of our time to have the recess as planned rather than to defer it.
I turn to a lesser local difficulty—the Cyprus dispute. I am always encouraged by the fact that if, in some extraordinary way, we can take from our proceedings all the agonies of the Province, Cyprus will emerge to take its place. If ever the House wanted to see sharply contrasting, firm and genuine committed views, it has done so this evening.
I can offer no thing better to my hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) and Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and the House than to say that, of course, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. We all agree that the issue will tax all the ingenuities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is of great importance not only to the communities who live on that unhappy island but to the West generally, because of the strategic position that Cyprus occupies.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) talked about the great deal of time that has been made available by the defeat of the Shops Bill. As that comment came from such an authority, I felt that I must respond. A former and distinguished Chief Whip might be presumed to know exactly what sort of Niagara of time had been released by the mishap over the Second Reading of the Bill. Whatever time was available for the Shops Bill has been used up already. Those hon. Members who think that they can beat me about with demands for this or that to help fill those virginal acres resulting from the defeat of the Shops Bill are very much mistaken.
In what I thought was a touching contribution, the right hon. Gentleman said that his constituency had reacted sharply when proffered a gipsy site. Often we talk about two nations. Often we talk about the rural community and the urban community. If there is one thing that unites Bristol and north Shropshire, it is ambivalence, to say the least, when given the option of a gipsy site.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the position is the same in Luton.

Mr. John Carlisle: I remind my right hon. Friend of the words of the Prime Minister when she moved to No. 10 in 1979. She declared that she sought better legislation but less of it. Would not my right hon. Friend do better if he took those words to heart?

Mr. Biffen: I endorse the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) asked what developments had taken place in the truck industry in the United Kingdom. He made some pertinent points and I am sure he understands that I cannot agree with all of them. None the less, my hon. Friend referred to a part of the debate which was not as widely heard when the decisions were made. I will relay his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) touched on a couple of points of constituency interest, and

I shall certainly take note of them. He then elevated our debate by his references to the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill which was introduced some time ago by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). As my hon. Friend said, the Bill did not survive the vagaries of the legislative route that had been chosen. I think that the House will wish to return to that matter.
I can understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who thought that it might be helpful if a little more time passed before the House considered the matter anew. I can in no sense anticipate what might be in the Queen's Speech, but this is one of those profound issues that touch on moral judgments. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon quoted with great effect the words of Cardinal Hume. The House is often at its best in such debates, but I must say that they are among the most difficult to manage procedurally. None the less, clearly we shall return to this matter in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) made an early comment on the debate that will attend the document that is being produced on alternative therapy. I thoroughly enjoyed his contribution. I am not sure where I shall stand at the end of that debate hut, again, it is a matter that properly enjoins the attention of the House. I am sure that he will agree that this is one of those many debates that can proceed just as well after the recess as before it.

Mr. Winnick: In case the right hon. Gentleman is worried about my Sunday mornings, may I say that I never watch television. I read his remarks in the press. I assume that they were correct because he did not challenge them. During the interview the right hon. Gentleman said that, if his party were to be re-elected, the Prime Minister would not stay the whole course. Was that remark cleared by No. 10, because the other day the right hon. Lady said that she was only halfway through her premiership?

Mr. Biffen: Like all good political speeches, it left more questions unanswered than answered.
We shall have our short break and then return and debate all these great issues—those that cover foreign affairs and those that cover the economy. Of course, the Conservative party will be under the goad of recent by-election and local electon losses, but that is not the precondition for defeatism. It is a precondition for arguing back and winning the argument, the affection of the country and, ultimately, the vote. That is exactly what we intend to do

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 23rd May, do adjourn until Tuesday 3rd June; and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 23rd May until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

DENTISTS

That the draft Dental Auxiliaries Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 11th April, be approved.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Social Security

Mr. Eric Deakins: I seek leave of the House to introduce a petition on proposals published by the Government in December 1985 in the White Paper on the consequences of the social security reviews undertaken by the Secretary of State for Social Services.
The petition has 28 signatures, but they are the signatures of the management committee of the Walthamstow Labour party, which has some 600 members and which, as a result of last Thursday's show, probably represents about half the electorate in my area. The petition is addressed to the proposals in the White Paper. The petitioners express the hope that the legislation based on that White Paper will not be passed because it
would be extremely detrimental to the residents of the United Kingdom who are in receipt of Social Security benefits
of whom there are many millions.
The petition concludes:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House do not pass legislation arising out the 'Reform of Social Security' White Paper. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Navan Fort

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I welcome the opportunity to refer once again to what I regard as a very important matter, to which I referred in my maiden speech. I shall try to put it into context by referring to something that is entirely English and not Irish at all. There are two stories, one of which goes back into medieval English romance and the other into pre-Christian romance, in Irish literary terms, that appeal to me. They may also appeal, in an impish way, to the Minister to whom I address these remarks.
The first is the story of Gawain in English romantic literature. The story of Gawain and the Green Knight may appeal to me because the knight happened to be green. This knight threatened the knights of the Round Table that if they did not do certain things he would use the gigantic sword that he wielded.
It is also significant that in Irish folklore and Irish romantic literature there is the precedent, about 800 years before that, of Bricriu who wielded a sword and threatened the knights of the Red Branch. There may be some significance in the fact that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) lives at Lough Bricrhland, which is called after Briciu. The most literal translation is "poison-tongue". I cast no aspersions whatsoever. However, if one combines the Green Knight and Bricriu one sees the relationship between Camelot in British legend and the Emain Macha in Irish legend. There is a substantial difference. Nobody has yet established where Camelot is. Nobody has been able to point to a site and say, "There is Camelot". However, we know that Emain Macha and Navan Fort was the seat of Irish kings. Ptolemy's atlas as far back as the second century after Christ charts it as the seat of kings. For that reason it is a matter of great concern to the people of Northern Ireland.
There has been a long public inquiry into the application for permission to quarry adjacent to and on the site of Emain Macha. I shall not deal with its merits or demerits. It was the subject of the longest public inquiry in the history of Northern Ireland. The Minister will have to make a very difficult decision and I sympathise with him. I ask him to bear in mind the evidence that was produced at the public inquiry and to realise that a decision is urgent.
I raised the matter again in a parliamentary question on 28 April. In his reply the Minister said that, having considered the report, he would report to us as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister does not think that I am being churlish when I say to him that I find his definition of speed rather difficult to understand. This matter is of interest not only to the people of Northern Ireland but to those living elsewhere. Its interest lies beyond the confines of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the whole island of Ireland. We wonder why this matter is being treated in so dilatory a fashion, why a decision cannot be made and why, after so many weeks, the Minister has not got round to providing a definite answer to this very serious problem.
Reluctantly, I have to say that those of us who sat through the public inquiry, who gave evidence to it and who feel strongly and deeply about this issue, are becoming impatient at the way in which the Minister's


Department is failing to come to grips with the problem. I ask him point blank tonight, now that I have the opportunity, when he will make his decision. Will it be long-fingered for another month, two months or for a matter of weeks? He must realise that, apart from the issue at stake—the planning controversy—other factors pertain—;
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]
There are other issues which pertain, not least the potential development of this historic site in cultural and educational terms and, not least, in archaeological terms. That type of forward planning cannot proceed or be developed beyond the embryo stage until the long-term position is clearly understood, not just in relation to Navan Fort but to the whole complex of Emain Macha. I must stress that that is not just confined to the fort itself but to the whole historic complex known as Emain Macha. In practical terms that is the Irish equivalent to Camelot, except that it exists.
I think that Cicero once said that not to be aware of the past is to remain for ever a child. I am pleased that there has been such an interest in international and national terms in the future of this complex. I am pleased that people are aware of such a positive influence in their heritage and in their folk memory and in the whole literary landscape to which it has contributed in relation to the works of James Millington Synge and William Butler Yeats, just as Camelot was the basis of so much of Lord Tennyson's great poetry.
I know that the Minister has a difficult decision to make. I trust that he will make the right one. I hope for the sake of all of us and for future generations living in Ireland that he will. I ask him to make his decision quickly and, please, put us all out of our misery, because there is a lot of forward thinking to do. A lot of planning must go into what is or is not to develop on the site and it cannot be done until he gives us a clear idea of what his decision will be. I take this opportunity of asking him to tell us clearly tonight when the decision will be made.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): As the nineteenth Viscount Newry, the sixth Earl of Kihnorey and the hereditary abbot of Newry and Mourne. I am an upstart and a newcomer compared with the knights of Ulster and Cuchullain. I am fully aware of and understand the obligations that are placed upon me.
I regret that I shall never have the opportunity of becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer, so I shall not understand what that purdah may be, but, in terms of my role as Minister with responsibility for the environment in Northern Ireland, I understand my role in purdah in relation to Navan Fort.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newry and Annagh (Mr. Mallon) on showing brevity and circumspection in his contribution this evening, because, as he pointed out, the matter has been debated at a public inquiry which lasted for 22 days—one of the longest that has taken place in Northern Ireland. I believe that the points on both sides were fully debated.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the report of the planning appeals commission is with the Department. I understand the hon. Gentleman's major concern about the timing of our decision, but he will appreciate that when an application has been the subject of an inquiry, important procedural rules require that the Department should not take into account any representations made afterwards without giving all those involved in the inquiry an opportunity to see and comment on the representations.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is important for us to come to our own decision on this immensely important issue. I am satisfied that all the relevant points that came up in the important public inquiry halve been thoroughly debated and that the planning appeals commission dealt with them fully in its report to the Department.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but I ask him to wait just a little while longer. I trust that the Department's decision will be made by the end of May.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Ten o' clock.